The Imagined Future of PC Games 134
PC Gamer has up a five-part series prognosticating the future of PC gaming. (part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5) Graham Smith, Kieron Gillen, and a few other PC games folks make some big-picture predictions about where console gaming's aging sibling is headed. Some of their predictions are fairly safe ("6. The mouse won't die, and graphics cards will get more powerful."), but others may be a bit contentious: "4. Steam and similar services will crush PC piracy. There's been a lot of talk from developers - old rivals id and Epic chief among them - about piracy making it harder for them to justify developing PC-only games. There's so little profit in it, apparently, that the poor fellows are left with no choice but to stray from their beloved home-platform and develop for consoles too. And yet the only games out there with a zero percent piracy ratio are all PC-only: MMOGs. They have a headstart in the anti-piracy crusade: connecting to a central server is an integral part of the game, so verifying that the user's CD key is unique can be done without much fuss. And no one's going to complain that a MMOG requires an internet connection; that's pretty obvious from the concept itself."
We don't need servers, we need napkins (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. WoW is PC and Mac. Spore will run on Wii, DS, and PC - altho it's a bit of a Massively Multi-Instance Multi-Player Online-Library Game.
Steam-Like Services *WILL* Save PC Gaming (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to be a huge critic of Steam and its related services, but I've warmed up to the idea over time.
As a softdev (and a small-time indie game dev) I have a hard time justifying piracy, and since I've made the moral choice to buy the software I use, it's hit my pocketbooks pretty hard, but it's a decision I am glad to live with. Most of my colleagues are not so conscious, I'm afraid, and most would buy a PC game if it's CD-key locked and the game was all about multiplayer (CS, BF2, etc), but almost none would ever buy a singleplayer game.
In other words, the concept that developers should just intrinsically *trust* the gamer to be moral and buy the game is hogwash. There may be a number of gamers like myself who strive to pirate as little as possible (if at all), but the majority of the world isn't so dev-friendly. I welcome (legal and reasonable) ways to protect developer content.
Additionally, I'm also a huge singleplayer gamer. I loved games like Deus Ex, Half-Life, and the new C&C3, which I bought mostly for the campaign mode (and it is excellent, btw). Many developers are eschewing singleplayer games in favour of multiplayer-only games, due to the fact that the multiplayer-ness easily lends itself to better piracy protection. This leaves gamers like me out in the cold. It is also why I believe, despite the evils of the technology, we must live with it if we are to see more singleplayer content being developed in this world.
Just my 2c.
Re:Hmm, a serial and a central server . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
My prediction: Enviroment (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this trend was mostly started by HL2's Gravgun, and we're going to see some significant advances in physics and materials in the next few years.
The two best examples i can think of right now are the upcoming Crysis and Star Wars: Force Unleashed.
Sure, attempts like Red Faction didn't do very well, but i think it's time.
Steam is not DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
DRM is a means to strongly limit your right to use something you purchase, to the point of suggesting that you don't really own it.
Steam will allow you to download your content to multiple computers, and freely play your content.
Most music DRM schemes limit your ability to copy your music, or play it on whatever hardware you choose.
Steam is first and foremost a means of digital distribution to skip the distribution middle-man.
Game development costs have skyrocketed, game developers are working more hours for less money, and yet while our expectations rise, our desire to pay more for games has not risen. Something has to give, and many truly great gaming companies have gone to the wayside.
If digital distribution puts more money into the hands of the developer, keeps overall costs down, allows me to purchase a game without leaving my house, install on multiple PCs without even looking for disks, etc. etc. etc., then it is certainly more of a blessing than a curse.
I'm all for digital distribution.
Is Steam perfect? No. But it was largely the first venture in the market, and it is a step in the right direction.
Re:It won't be cross-platform... (Score:2, Interesting)
So? Valve is a publisher & Steam is a distribution network, it's got nothing to do with the Source engine being DirectX.
Valve can replace the Internet Explorer control with the Mozilla control for a linux port. CS:Source is irrelevant as it won't run on Linux natively anyway.
There are titles on there that do have native Linux binaries -- Darwinia, for instance, has a Steam release, but you can also buy it from their website, which gives you 3 downloads each, completely un-DRM'd, of the Windows and Linux versions (Mac version is published by a third-party shop that did the port).
Personally, I'd like to re-implement Steam, but the way I want to do it is complete overkill, and not going to happen soon.
Re:They said WHAT!? (Score:3, Interesting)
In stores, they usually only stock a few titles, the most popular ones. Short shelf life means developers bet on safe cards, which means (in my opinion) boring games. If developers can sell online (not necessarily through Steam) they can reach a bigger market cheaper, and consumers can get games later. I personally have bough Psychonauts and Bookworm adventures online the last month, and I plan to buy many more.
Maybe the reason that gaming has been steadily moving back to consoles is because it works better there.
When gaming magazines release the latest sales figures and people go "omg pc gaming is dying!", remember none of these sales numbers (that I've seen so far) include:
1) Online sales. That's right. Steam, Popcap games, Gametap, Three Rings Net and so on, are not included. Neither is the money poured into MMO subscriptions. If you include those, I think the total amount spent on PC gaming industry is probably larger than the market for any single console.
2) International sales, where PC sales are stronger.
With the exception of a few games that really do play better with mouse and keyboard, consoles have PCs beat.
Not if you want deep strategy games or simulation games, non-linear western RPGs, or if you want to play MMOs, or if you want to add your own mods or content like in NWN/NWN2, or if you want to play decades of games from dozens of platforms through emulators...
And they are cheaper.
Most people need a PC in their homes anyway, so spending a little bit extra on a better graphics card is not that big a deal. Besides, with the costs of the latest generation, some people are questioning [blogspot.com] whether consoles are cheaper at all.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They said WHAT!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm, a serial and a central server . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree about the primary financial outlay, and I think games like EVE Online are doing the smart thing by allowing free download of the client, free trial period and eliminating box sales altogether.
This way, you can check if you like the game without much hassle, but if you want to stay you need a paid up account. Easy to get into, but not so easy to get around the payment.