PC's In The Toilet... An Opportunity??

#1 Ouch. I didn't know ALL of that had been going on.
We are readying a launch of one of our products in 2-3 years. We love games, and will do our best to push the industry expectations of what a good 3d game is.

Think the PC will still be a good platform to develop for and release product in 3 years?

#2 That is pretty much the point of my post :) Yes, stick with it. However, the other part of this is to make sure your idea is different. Don't look at what is selling now. Think about how to harness the incredible abilities of the future PC, and I don't mean just cool 3D effects like lighting. I mean fast,ubiquitous connectivity, great input devices, and lots of CPU power. This is not a technology problem.

Jeff

#3 We've got to remember that the Internet boom has really peaked. It's kind of like a gold rush. There are some serious miners who set up a mine, carefully planning where to put it, buying rights, and don't expect to make a profit immediately. Others rush in when they hear the word "gold" and a few of them strike it lucky. But after a couple of years, the hype dies down, the immediate money dies off, and you're left with the stalwarts who always saw gold mining as a long term thing. These guys, or their companies are still in the gold mining business a hundred and fifty years later.

The main point to remember is that the information technology, especially the Internet, has been all the rage for a while now. A lot of that is overblown hype, and venture capital sunk into crap projects in the hope that they'll strike it lucky.

But as the smoke clears (and it is beginning to) the hype masters will move on to the next big thing, lots of bits of the industry will deflate, and the media will talk about "the death of " while they hype up something else.

Funny thing is that people have been paying money to play computer games since the 1970s. They'll still be playing them in 10 years. If you settle in with a long term vision, and refuse to be upset by the dire prognostications of the media, then you'll find there's as much money and opportunity for good games in 5 to 10 years as there is now.

IMHO :)

#4 There is a simple reason PC sales have decilned. When PCs became main stream everyone wanted one. Everyone went out and bought one within a few years. That led to a huge increase in sales. The problem is most of the people who bought one aren't buying new ones yet, so the number of PC sales declined drasticly. I perdict a second wave of PC buying when everyone realizes there crappy Dell systems are outdated.

#5 There is another aspect to this. PC sales are going down as this recession forcasted by the government and the mainstream media comes about. (I'd lay odd that if someone got the media under control this so-called recession wouldnt be happening)

Either way, people are tired of having to buy a new PC every other year. My PC is less than 2 years old and I cant play some new games on the market. Sorry but $3000 every two years is rediculous. Look for a backlash from consumers that are sick of it.

#6 It's odd that stagnating PC evolution is hurting the game industry, I always expected that would help a lot. I saw this coming when P500s first came out and all my tech friends thought I was nuts at the time. They got so much faster so quickly, from 486/66 to PIII500 in like 2 1/2 years, that I thought most people would buy a PIII-500 and say "that's it, I can finally just stick with one damn computer for 5 years!"

I think that's exactly what is happening, and isn't that great for game companies? Most gamers now have about the same system and plan on keeping it for a long time. The industry can finally just pick a standard and run with it for a while. Fewer new PCs sold doesn't mean less of a demand for games, that demand will remain at least the same as it has been. You'd think the game companies would be jumping with joy.

#7 This post is a little late, I'm still getting around to all the interesting topics....

I also think slowing pc sales are a good thing for game developers. To me, this means that all the
people who went out and bought systems in the last few years are holding on to them. That means
developers have a little more time to take advantage of the hardware thats already out there before
having to abandon target system requirements for a project simply because hardware has gotten
more advanced durring a game's development. How many games take forever to ship because the
dev. team switched 3d engines again and again just to keep up? Okay, I'll say it... I want duke.
Anyway, pc hardware is more than capable of creating amazing graphics gor games. The problem
is, that better graphics (increased poly counts & effects) dont mean better gaming experiences. By
now, I think most gamers know what mip-mapping and bump mapping are and it doesnt matter
anymore. It doesnt matter what engine a game uses or what effects it supports, a mediocre game
is still just that. I just think its time to make good games, but I'm a dinosaur.. what do I know :)


-maurice

#8 People are afraid that Consoles will kill PC's

People were afraid at one point that PC's would kill Consoles (look it up - check 1995 era Next Gen mags).

The kicker is - they're both right and they're both wrong. It's kinda like a yin and yang thing. Plot the effective processing power of PC's versus consoles over time and you would see a steady exponential curve over time for the PC and a stairstep pattern for consoles. Consoles keep leapfrogging PC's in power because they can, but the PC will never go away, so long as the PC itself stays around. And the PC will stick around - despite claims of "Internet Appliances" and the like.

But yeah, it's probably a good time to be a "Garage" developer - I think we'll be experiencing a renaissance.

Schnapple
www.schnapple.com

#9 Here's a ".plan" file I wrote on this topic several years ago:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 8, 1998

A few people have reminded me that many months ago I said that I'd write about the negative effects that realistic and improved graphics have had on the game industry. I guess it's time to pontificate. Who knows, I might even have a valid point or two--sometimes I get lucky that way.

Let's get this straight: Everyone loves the improved graphics we're seeing in today's games. The key problem is that too often developers focus on graphics and lose focus gameplay issues.

This is why most FMV (full motion video) games fell flat on their pompous faces. This is why the convergence of Hollywood and Silicon Valley won't revolutionize the game industry. This is why Rocket Science never had a chance.

Spin the date dial back to the late 70's and early 80's, when graphics were 1-bit, we're talking black and white, but included masterworks like Asteroids, Space Invaders, Space War, Battlezone, and Pong. Other 1-bit games used colored plastic overlays on the monitor itself, like Star Castle, Armor Attack, and Warlords, and on some machines those overlays even lined up correctly.

But you know what, as unrealistic as those graphics were, those games were addictively fun. Later games like Pac Man, Galaxian, Missile Command, Tempest, Defender, and Centipede graduated to 2-bit (4 color), and even 4-bit (16 color) graphics. But still, the graphics weren't the selling point--it was still the balanced, polished gameplay. Designers back then for the most part designed their games with gameplay in mind first, and the graphics were simply a medium to bring their game to life. Look how these older games have been fondly remembered over the years. There's a single, solid reason for that: Gameplay.

Nowadays, with graphics standards escalating on nearly a monthly basis, it's tough for developers to focus long and hard on the juicy meat of game design. Imagine what the game chess might be like if the game designers had focused too much attention on the quality of the wooden or stone pieces, and the detail and shape of the pieces (polygon count?). I can't imagine that these were important considerations when the game of chess evolved, meaning chess' gameplay (game rules and the interaction of the pieces) mattered most and could be polished without competing distractions.

However, game players like to see something that looks better than they've seen before. That's what puts the pressure on developers to focus on better graphics, and that deducts time from gameplay balance and polishing.

Perhaps the real enemy of gameplay is advancing technology, such as faster CPUs and new 3D accelerated cards. If we could freeze hardware technology for five years, then all developers could stop competing so hard on the graphics front and once again give due attention to gameplay concerns. We might even have more time to think of a few more original games, since we wouldn't have the crutch of just doing what's been done before but with a better graphics engine.

I think gameplay is the victim of advancing technology, which favors advancements in graphics over advancements in game design. It's a rare development team that can overcome the seduction of advancing technology and give gameplay issues proper focus. Every developers' first step in this direction is to be aware of the problem...

#10 On a business side, it's oft been said that hard times for a market can be great oppurtunities for people willing to invest. That investment doesn't have to be money - and so the independant developer can flourish where the financially stretched development team might be concentrating on milking their current assets for what they are worth.

But a decrease in the rate of sales of computers is still an increase in the total number of computers out there, unless the rate of attrition of computers higher (unlikely). Also, it's vital to know where the sales are dropping - is this in the cooperate or personal sector? My guess would be that with the year 2000 issue,combined with the launch of Windows 2K and it's compatibility issues, many companies found themselves purchasing new systems across the board. We now have no business incentive for new hardware, and a shaky climate for expenditure. So consumer purchases may not have dropped.

Indeed, my greatest worry for independent developers would be the large amount of free software now available. We've just contributed to that with our demo, and can only hope that our idea is fresh enough to warrent actually forking out cash. We believe it is, and having seen the competition can only stress that you have to have a new idea to have a chance of making it, as there are plenty of polished derivatives for free out there.

For us, one fear was that the free games for advertising (such as the now demised freeloader.com) model would put the power back into the hands of a 'portal player' acting as a publisher but with different priorities to the developer. However, that part of the market seems to be collapsing.

GarageGames, though a 'portal player', seems to have the same priorities as the developers, although time will tell. Certainly I do not doubt the founders integrity, though market forces may cause conflicts.

BACK to the main post though - PC's In The Toilet... An Opportunity??

.........YES!!!!!!!!! I'm now busy setting up our first system, though have had some problems with getting the height of the keyboard, monitor, and mouse correct for this seating position. Market research trials of average time spent by male/female audiences leads us to short games for girls and longer for men, although the male market is actually split into two modes - seated and standing. What genre is best for this market will require more in depth investigation, though a cultural bias may prevent online gaming from the toilet from making the big time.

Please excuse me now, as I have to go... play a game.

Doug. EnkiSoftware Limited

#11 I see a few benefits right off the bat:

1. I can buy up all of those cheap Athlon 650mhz computers that are on sale and make a Beowulf computing cluster.

2. Everybody will be able to afford new PCs when prices fall. More gamers!

3. My little brother will finally have his own computer.

Other than that, yeah, I can see why some people might feel this is a 'bad thing'. Well, speaking as a person who short-sold Lucent at 68, you can make a tidy profit off of others' losses. This would make us something like the Carpetbaggers of the New Millenium!

I see the XBox as opening up a WIDE world of gaming for us. HALO is going to be released for the PC -- but PC gaming profit margins are only going to get slimmer, unless.

Unless game publishers can find better methods of distribution.

Unless game publishers can make competitive games for less money.

Which, frankly, isn't going to happen unless the major publishers basically start up something like what GG is doing. This would be somewhat impractical for them, because they could just make their games for the XBox and not have to worry about the compatibility problems that plague the PC gaming world, while selling their games to more people.

The thing that you may or may not realize about this is that this means it will be easier for indy game developers to get their games produced. When major developers start pulling out, new forms of distribution (like GG) will be a very, very reasonable alternative for gamers. The costs accrued by indy developers are far below what the 'pros' rack up.

#12 So how much of this ended up being true, and how much foolery?

#13 Totally agreed. One thing most people seem to always ignore is that just like nature, technology has cycles too. Stuff goes into fad, comes out of it, waits a while and gets back into it.

#14 It took a little longer then expected but it's certianly what we see today, PC Gaming (despite having a few big profitable titles last year, HL2, Doom3, and WoW) has been underperforming for publishers. Most games are being developed for console first and then if they are successful, being ported back to PC. KOTR, Halo, GTA etc. Oddly enough we've been seeing a greater access to the console platforms for Indie's as well, with initatives like XBox's XArcade etc. The opportunity that jeff spotted in 2000 is still alive and well, maybe even more so today.

#15 I think that the mantra sported by Gamebeavers, regarding indies taking control of the PC platform is a good idea that gets more attractive all the time.

I was also wondering recently if the prcing of PC games should be more competitive, similar to what Sega was doing with the ESPN Sports series. 50 bucks for a game is not cheap, regardless of how much money you're bringing home. I have also been quite suprised at seeing newly released AAA titles available as direct downloads ([url=http://www.direct2drive.com/']Direct 2 Drive[/url]). I'm hoping that this means that more companies are embracing ESD at the very least as an alternate source of distribution.

I think one the PCs strengths is that it will always be around in one form or another. Even if the major developers abandon this platform , we, the indie developers will continue to circle like scavenging vultures, ready to pick apart the decaying husk to reveal the underline flesh that makes it so valuable.

#16 I think pcs will eventualy kill-off consoles.
Consoles are just computers without lots of the major features of a computer. And not only do pcs do gaming they have other features like e-mail ect...

And unlike some consoles PC's are common in almost evry household(see no one wants a new computer thus sales fall until they see something they NEED).

#17 @Ben people will always want a dedicated gaming box hooked up to their TV, PC's are no more likely to kill off consoles, than anyother console is likely to step in an wipe out all the other manufacturers.

However with PC Architecture stagnating at the summit of the 32 bit threshold, I think the next generation of processors, 64 bit, dual core, etc and so forth, will breath a whole new life into the PC market the likes of which have not been seen since the i386 processor was introduced nearly 15-20 years ago..

In short, yes the PC market is a little stagnant right now, but people will HAVE to upgrade in the future to take advantage of true 64bit apps. This will cause a resurgance of the market, and it will take PC gaming along for the ride.

#18 Ben, the market just doesn't agree with you :
Total PC sales (includes Mac) are right under the sales for mobile (which is going to grow leaps and bounds in the next couple years, whether the mobile bubble bursts or not) for 2004.
Console games are nearly an order of magnitude beyond, and are what makes the game industry so big.
Btw, a lot of households have one console and no PC, whether when people have a PC and kids, they usually have a PS2, a gamecube, or an xbox, if not all 3...

That said, the PC market is still way big enough for indies.

#19 That post was five years ago and things have changed a lot since then. We are now on the verge of a new generation of console hardware. PC's never really recovered after the last generation (just look at the amount of store shelf space in any place that sells both PC and console games or look at the data from sales). There is still a ton of opportunity for indies to make and sell games on the PC, but I am afraid that the consoles are going to win the war eventually.

It seems to me that PC's will eventually end up being fat client web services access machines (think photos, picture editing, word processing, music, GMail, Quicken, news, IM, etc.). I think everybody will still have them, but I don't think they will be replaced nearly as often as they have in the past. PC's will become more commodity and appliance like, and for most of the most used applications, they are already powerful enough. PC's will be more like TV's than cutting edge technology. That said, IMO there will always be so many of them, that game opportunities will still be very large, especially for companies that can find an audience and not spend a huge amount of money on development.

In the meantime, consoles will become more like PC's, but specialized for playing games. Of course, certain types of games will always play better on the close up, keyboard/mouse centric PC, but for most players, the heat will be in console land.

-Jeff Tunnell GG

#20 @Jeff I disagree, my instincts tell me that in 3-5 years we will see a resurgence in PC Gaming the likes of which have never been seen before, with new visualization technologies becoming ubiquitous, like HD etc, we may see a smattering of convergence devices come up on the market, but honestly people WANT to play certain types of games in the privacy of their bedroom or whever the computer happens to sit. Sitting in the living room tying up the TV with juniors latest game tends to cause family friction, since most of us Gen X'ers now have kids, and the rest will be very soon, you have a whole generation brought up on both Console and PC gaming, that now has money to play games, and motivation to relax alone (kids are a pain in the butt and escape does feel nice).

Yes PC hardware is now to the point where it can take full advantage of todays visualization techniques, but in the future I think you will see games, which address an entire world the size of earth mapped down to the inch, this will require ALOT more processing power than we have now, and of course GenX being the "me too" generation will want to be the first on the block with the newest latest and greatest, if for no other reason than to let junior sit in the living room and Veg out to "Nun Hunter 2010 (escape of the killer nuns)" while dad sits and Plays "Evercrack 3000", trying to escape the mundanity of his workaday life.