Frogboy Frogboy

Some thoughts on the state of PC gaming...

▼

Some thoughts on the state of PC gaming...

from Stardock Forums

Wrote this on usenet for whatever it's worth:

I think the biggest problem PC games face is that PC game publishers haven't really caught up to the fact that consoles can now do a lot of the kinds of games that you used to need a PC for. That means that PC games need to bring new things to the table that give users a reason to purchase PC titles.

I can think of two big things PC games COULD have that would make them more attractive:

(1) Electronic distribution. I'd buy more games if I could just go to their
site, press a button and have it. The Rise of Nations expansion is out, when will I have time to haul my lazy butt up to Best Buy or whatever and purchase it? I'd buy it right this second if I could go and download it.

(2) After-release enhancements. Keep updating the game after release with new features that can be downloaded into the game to keep it fresh and interesting and you'll lengthen the sales cycle on the game.  Even a year after release, Galactic Civilizations is selling pretty decently.

But I can tell you from first-hand experience that some of the big
publishers are not only not embracing these ideas but are against it.  I had a conference call recently with a publisher who was offering a very large advance on royalties for one of our upcoming games but was skittish on on-line distribution and after-release electronic updates because they believe piracy is a big issue and being wary of frequent updates due to a lack of publisher control of the game's direction.

But tell me, which is easier to pirate? A CD-ROM or something that's
streamed over something like Stardock Central or Steam? I'd say the CD-ROM - crack the copy protection and make an image with a serial number and voila.


And which is likely to sell better? A game that stays the same after release or one that gets minor enhancements based on player feedback?

I am convinced that the primary reason Galactic Civilizations
(www.galciv.com) ended selling so well is because of the post-release
updates that added new features. Each time you release something meaningful, it gets more coverage in the game mags and webzines which increase sales. But that required that we put an after-release budget.

I really do think the biggest thing game publishers need to get into is the electronic distribution of titles. Frankly,we won't sign a deal with a
publisher that prevents us from electronically distributing our games at
least via Drengin.net (www.drengin.net).

Now, regarding the second issue which is the death of Indie American
developers..

If American developers are going to have a hope of competing economically with eastern European develoeprs then they have to be allowed to sell the game directly -- electronically.  Stardock made far FAR more revenue on Galactic Civilizations from direct sales than it did retail sales despite direct sales only representing <10% of the total sales. If it weren't for direct sales, we wouldn't be working on Galactic Civilizations II.

The Strategy Firsts and other similar publishers of the world can only
deliver 20k to 50k units at retail domestically (that's essentially their
distribution reach -- though in GalCiv's case, it got a huge spike thanks to MOO 3 and strong foreign distribution as well). If the developer is only making $6 to $7 per unit, that's not going to pay for a real game.  But couple that with say 10,000 direct sales at $40 apiece and now you can pay for that development.

But if PC publishers stick to only thinking about traditional means of
selling and supporting games, then what's going to happen is that only the biggest PC games will be viable to develop.  The cost of developing games, even smaller ones, continues to rise because the production values rise. And because of the low barrier of entry to consoles ($150 and you've got one, no messing with the latest Detonator drivers and DirectX) consoles will continue to take on a bigger market share as long as the PC publishers are going head to head with console games on the same ground.

1,936 views 47 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top
Anybody with an XBox not play Halo ?
End of quote


What's an X-Box???? LOL or should that be :VOMIT:


Alex


~SDC~
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top
Overall, 2003 U.S. sales of console games totaled $5.8 billion (186.4 million units) while computer games accounted for $1.2 billion (52.8 million units) in sales.
End of quote


Kind of depends where the stats came from though Technician. Most market research companies canvas a certain range of companies or products. It's quite possible that the smaller local shops etc were not included. Were the stats from Store sales? If so then the Internet sales for downloadable games such as GalCiv that I dare bet didn't get factored into it. How about direct sales from Developers? Hhmmm All food for thought :notsure:

Anybody with an XBox not play Halo ?
End of quote


Probably not, seeing as it was the only game worth purchasing for the XBox at the time :D

Frankly I think consoles are ok but I'd never bother buying one myself. I hate gamepads for a start, FPS games on a console are terrible compared to PC versions with keyboard/mouse combo. I hate fighting games for another, and racing games get old pretty quickly for me too. Of course everyone's different, but I know a host of people who I LAN with who feel the same way
Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top
Any company offering games for downloading, needs to have a server that supports resuming.

Either that, or split the game into smaller packets that can be downloaded overnight by overseas buyers with a dial up connection....like me.
Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top

I think that TVs and PCs are going to remain as separate pieces of hardware for quite awhile.  They really have two different purposes. 

Unless you're buying a tv for a bedroom or an office where only one person is going to be using it, you are going to buy as big a tv as you can afford and fit in your living room.  When your friends come over to watch a sports game, or movie night, or to play video games, you all gather around it.  So it has to be big.

The acronym PC stands for Personal Computer.  It's not convenient for more than one person to use it at a time, either for entertainment or work.  And as someone pointed out, you can do lots of things with computers. 

Laptops, up until fairly recently, have suffered as gaming machines because their sound and video cards were terrible, and their hard drives were slower.  I have a Toshiba Satellite P15-S479.  It's a Pentium 4 with HT Technology, 2.8 GHz. It has a 60 GB HD, 512 MB RAM, an NVidia GeForce FX Go5200 with 64 MB VRAM, a 15" screen and an integrated wireless card.  It works great as a gaming machine.  And since it's portable, I can use it anywhere.  No fussing with external LCD screens that cost as much as the console. 

However, consoles are a lot simpler for the average person to use, and they are less expensive.  I think that it would be a mistake for consoles to start coming out with keyboards and mice as standard equipment.  Who is really going to want to play Rise of Nations on their TV? If I have to go through a list of more than say five things with one of the joystick controls on the game pad, I might as well be playing on a PC with a mouse.

I have a Game Cube, but I'm primarily a PC gamer.  For most games, if it comes out on the PC, I'll buy it for the PC.  I mostly buy games with multiplayer like Mario Party for the Game Cube, and I mostly only play it when friends come over.  I don't see why some people have an either/or attitude about consoles and pcs. 

As long as developers don't try to force their games to work on a platform it's not suited for, there won't be a problem. 

 

 

Reply #31 from Stardock Forums Top
The Phantom, which until recently I believed was just a hoax, appears to be doing something quite interesting in bringing PC style gaming to the TV. It even has a combined mouse/keyboard controller.
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/512/512393p1.html

~SDC~
Reply #32 from Stardock Forums Top
Here are a few of reasons that I prefer games on the pc

1. I can watch tv while playing them :)
2. PC's are more conmfigurable (user input.. controlers)
Because I only have 1 hand (arm) I find the console
controlers totaly unmanagable..
This includes those over priced handeld games..
3. Better support (bug fixes) . I've yet to buy a PC game that
I liked that didn't come out with atleast 1 update / bugfix
4. Generally gameplay is superour and the games arn't cut down
versions (which Ive seen so many times where a trimed down
version of a pc game has been rekleased for console machines
5. Games generally load faster off the PC and gameplay is less
disjointed
Reply #33 from Stardock Forums Top
Better support (bug fixes) . I've yet to buy a PC game thatI liked that didn't come out with atleast 1 update / bugfix
End of quote

99% of console games are so reliable they don't need bug fixes.
Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top
PC games used to be like that too... LOL

Programmers for PC have gotten more complacent.. and rush the testing period.. publishers may be to blame..

however that being said.. its easier to program for consoles.. because they are the same from one xbox to the next.. they don't have to worry about older hardware or newer device drivers etc... So yes in that reguard the console games are more stable and easier to program for..

Back in the good old dais of the C64 etc.. games used to be more stable because of the same reasoning as console machines.. PC's used to be "Backward compatable" but no more .. :( and unfortunatly this is a fact of life.. and this also means that every year you'll get newer consoles comming out to keep up with technology.. and at a bigger cost than upgrading PC's.. so there is a downside to keep playing the latest and greatest games on console machines..




Reply #35 from Stardock Forums Top
Programmers for PC have gotten more complacent.. and rush the testing period.. publishers may be to blame..
End of quote

Since downloading a patch is now a fairly regular accepted part of buying a new game, it's very tempting for a publisher to release a faulty game rather than miss a release date, and then deal with the problems later.

I've always been annoyed by people who simply blame faulty games on lazy programmers (who have probably worked until midnight for weeks to get the thing finished), without considering publishers, etc. Deadlines are set by managers who have no idea how long it's really going to take but prefer to set them sooner rather than later because they know programmers have to work longer hours for no extra pay if the deadline is too soon. Bugged games are caused by (a) incompetent programmers, (b) deadlines that leave no time for bugs to be found and fixed, and (c) the desire to release a game on schedule.
Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top
I think PC gaming will be around for a while yet. One of its big advantages is also one of its big disadvantages. That being, the PC is scaleable. I can purchase a $600 PC from Dell that will run most games... or I can buy a $3000 PC from Alienware that can play ANY game and play it well. With consoles, you get what you get. I know, thats a pretty elitist view of things but its the truth.

Scaleability also makes it more difficult for programmers to work with though. They have to account for all the possibilities, while console programmers have a solid known set of hardware and OS capabilities.

And finaly, Consoles are typicaly built to the lowest specifications feasible to keep the cost down. While they might rival the AVERAGE PC for CPU and GPU power when they are released.. it only takes 6 months for the average PC to be ahead again.. and most Gamer Geeks such as my self always strive to have the hot rod PCs that no console can ever rival.

Still.. I suppose we ARE a nich market.

Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top
Consoles are typicaly built to the lowest specifications feasible to keep the cost down. While they might rival the AVERAGE PC for CPU and GPU power when they are released.. it only takes 6 months for the average PC to be ahead again..
End of quote


Even today consoles are sold at a loss, profit is in selling the games.
Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top

Very true, Tech.

 

Reply #39 from Stardock Forums Top
Frogboy, It's a very very interesting Read.

I have to admit to comparing your company to a fledgeling Cavedog Entertainment. I think the similarities are very much there, with the good solid development, and the Strong figurehead/developer at the head of the company. When Chris Taylor took the money and got his new bosses, he lost all power to create HIS programs, and ended up creating little of any value. Cavedog, of course, fell apart in short order without him.

Enough for history though, it is clear that you guys will not have this type of issue with Stardock, you see things much more clearly I think. And your point about the control of development AND sales of your programs is 100% correct - it's essential to the growth of companies.

And while some distributers may not clearly see the control you have implemented over the illegal distribution of your software, it's clear to all of us here. People may still use the original copy of GC illegally, with their fraudulent key, but HELL! What good is the original at this point? There are so many patches and fixes and improvements, that the original is certainly obsolete to any "true" gamer. You have made GC a program that is MUCH more valuable if it was purchased than if it was pirated. I think when you find a distributor who sees this point, you will have found a good one :)

But, to all this online community and closeness to your customers, I will make one point that I made in the past, that was less than popular: You can listen too closely to a squeeky wheel ! What I mean by this is that some people cheated at GC, bypassing the AI in ways some of us never dreamed of. Others blatently did things like Culture-bombing the AI. Now I understand that you want to fix problems in the game, but in the final patches of GC, I found that you had "patched" the game so much, to fix these issues that the "elite scorers" of the game had, that it wasn't fun any more for me, an admittedly "Mortal" GC player. I had no more energy to re-learn the dozens of changes you made to stop a few cheats. So essentially, the game was made much less fun for me. And that is how I ended up not caring to buy AP. That is how I ended up not even caring about GC2. And I will tell you this -- I had very much anticipation for both of these games before hand.

Anyways, not be so negative, I truly do respect you and the company you work for :) I wish you all best of luck with your ventures -- good to see Canadians at the forefront of the game developement field for sure. Another thing Stardock and Cavedog had in common, by the way !

~SDC~
Reply #41 from Stardock Forums Top
one of the things i liked/like about GC is the fact that the programmers has some old fashioned habits of making a project with the minimum amount of code. GC has got leaner and faster rather than the other way round. obviously this has benefits for a on-line delivered product, but i was wondering whether GC's internal modular design would lead it to being developed in an external modular fashion.....with different modules suiting different situations/tech..and all combinable if you wanted the full experience....iz i making sense?
Reply #42 from Stardock Forums Top
Right now there are only two true advantages the PC has over the console market: much higher resolution displays and potentially unlimited memory and storage space. Most games, however, require neither feature, and as time moves on, it becomes cheaper to give more and more with the consoles.
End of quote


Don't forget the keyboard and mouse factor. I like having a joystick, but for any strategy or true role playing games, you really need to have these two items. Aside from that direct distribution is a huge money saver. There is no transportation cost aside from the bandwidth for the company.
Reply #43 from Stardock Forums Top
(1) Electronic distribution. I'd buy more games if I could just go to theirsite, press a button and have it. The Rise of Nations expansion is out, when will I have time to haul my lazy butt up to Best Buy or whatever and purchase it? I'd buy it right this second if I could go and download it.
End of quote



This is coming. Developers Valve (the people who made Half Life) have been developing a 'content delivery system' called STEAM, which is going live soon I believe, if it isn't already. I forget if its open to the public now, or if it just doesn't offer many titles yet, but its going to be a fact of life within months. Or it'll fail dismally for whatever reason and sink into obscurity.

If it works, it will give developers an opportunity to sell directly to the public, cutting out the midle man publishers. If it all pans out, it could be a very good thing indeed.
:)
Reply #44 from Stardock Forums Top
The only reason i like to buy games from retail is becuase of i get a hard copy (cd copy) of the game. I knida think it is messed up that galciv is the same price here online as it is in retail store. as the first post said, in retail say you make 5-7 dollars on each copy, but for online you make 40 dollars (and i don't think server and bandwidth per buy cost 20 dollars even). I am not saying i will not buy from online stores, I will probloby buy GalCiv2 from dreignet instead of the retail store, but all i am trying to say is that there might be alittle more reason to but directly from the develpers if the cut the price a little buy 5-10 dollars
[Message Edited]
Reply #45 from Stardock Forums Top
more reason to but directly from the develpers if the cut the price a little buy 5-10 dollars
End of quote


Bad practice to undercut your retailers..... They then don't want to stock your product....

Alex


~SDC~
Reply #46 from Stardock Forums Top
Bad practice to undercut your retailers..... They then don't want to stock your product....
End of quote


Wish someone would tell that to certain computer/technology companies that shall remain unnamed... :D
Reply #47 from Stardock Forums Top
The main advantage PC games have over consoles is the same advantage the internet has over printed periodicals (a.k.a magazines) and other printed media.

Console games, like printed media, need a publisher with deep pockets to manufacture and distribute the product to retail outlets. These outlets very likely play favorites with big mega-publishing companies for shelf space, but then, who can blame them. All this big money makes taking risks (doing something new, creative, or different) a not-to-appealing quality to the big companies involved since they can make more money by cranking out safer (re-hashed gameplay, sequels, etc.) projects.

Direct distribution via the internet means small creative game companies can compete based on the quality of the product, not the size of its accounting department.

Frogboy, I think this is why publishers don't like the idea of direct sales -- it could lead to them being left out of the loop in the long run. Not because of illegal piracy, but because people will realize that they are not strictly needed anymore, and games are more original and fun to boot. In short they loose control.