I cannot believe I am saying this but I was about to say that mainstream people are dumb if publishers say that people are dumb and only care about ACTION-GRAPHIX-BOOBS and that stragety is working and making millions to the publishers then mabye people are stupid ,of course I could be wrong.

Also I said this is only in AAA games I am aware of the indie market making games like GrimRock for crying out loud and yes PC games back in the 90s were still niche, no one cared about Fallout all they cared about was Final Fantasy VII

There are other publishers capable of AAA games, you know?

EA has made it plain that they're not about to do anything good any time soon, and anything that looks good they'll find some way to utterly cripple some way or another. Like the overkill they're using on Sim City, which is both drastically overpriced and DRMed to hell. Crysis 3 might prove to be an exception, we'll have to see. But one game just isn't worth keeping them around for.

Actiblizz... what the fuck do they even do anymore that's not CoD or WoW? Meh.

Ubisoft? Well yeah I assume you're not referring to them in what you said. Biggest joke of them all.

Your tastes are not universal. I love Dead Space, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge and other EA series. I love Assassin's Creed, Rayman and Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six, yes even the new ones. Activision is harder but I know they have had some good games recently like Prototype and Singularity, plus... THE HORROR... I like Call of Duty.

Considering these games all sell much better than 99.9% of indies it's pretty elitist jerk-face to act like they're not needed and beneath the mighty PC platform. Also if those companies stopped making PC games everything would collapse on our platform, basically. The signal alone would get other companies to pull out a bunch of PC gamers at Best Buy buying consoles, then you have a drop in 3D card purchases, and on and on...

Gaming is good when it is a mixture of styles. Not when people think they're better than fun games because of some random depth requirement.

You're setting up straw men here. It's nothing to do with tastes, but what impact these companies are having on the platform as a whole. What use is a good Ubisoft game is it's hidden behind an insurmountable mountain of DRM?

These companies represent a drive towards increased DRM and a move towards online requirements. The intentions behind both being the same - control of paying customers. Get control over them. Herd them into their pens and then every game can be like F2P. Piracy is irrelevant to them. It's just an excuse.

That's why I want shot of them. What, in future, do we stand to gain from them? We're talking about entertainment products here. I don't know about you, but personally my idea of a good time is not being butt fucked by anal probe DRM.

You seem to be of the impression that in the wake of their absence other publishers would leave also. For what reason? Their sales would increase due to the lack of competition. Imagine what it would mean to an FPS to not have to go head to head with CoD or Battlefield?

The market would simply fill the void, as it has done in the past and will do again. The advantage the PC has over the consoles is that it's not going anywhere. If a console starts to lose support then it could well trigger a mass exodus. This is after all something that is clearly observable right up to and including the Wii. The PC represents a persistent market. One that will weather recessions, collapses of major publishers and whatever else is thrown at it.

As for graphics cards, both AMD and Nvidia are utterly hopeless and yet nobody has stepped up to the plate to dominate the market. Something that at this point in time would be very easy to do. It's not like there's any real competition out there when neither of those dipshits could code drivers to save their lives.

In fact, when you look at the current dire state of affairs and the lack if interest of any other parties to take the market for themselves, I'd argue that things are already pretty dire.

Depends. There is a lot of "nostalgia" with games - in college my best friend and I would have marathon Super Mario World and Prince of Persia sessions, but now I probably wouldn't find them very engaging.

But I also agree that many new games out there now are nothing more than pretty graphics with little thought to story or mechanics.

I still love Morrowind and Oblivion; can't stand Skyrim.

I loved "Phantasmagoria" when it came out. I re-bought it here because of nostalgia, haven't played it much.

I still love a lot of older games, because they were engaging and fun. I just don't find that as much with new games; they're either complicated to the point of being boring or way too shallow.

But aside from the games, people change as well. After many many years of gaming, I'm not exactly the same person I was when I was growing up. The same things don't necessarily excite me the way they did 20 years ago.

Like I said before it's a matter of intent. Valve aren't some shining light. There are strong good and bad qualities about what they've brought to the PC. But by making digital distribution viable in the eyes of publishers they helped keep the PC market healthy despite the slow death of retail (for PC titles).

As for Blizard, well they're under Kotick's wing as a part of Actiblizz. So they're already covered by that. I don't really have anything against them as such. But there's no point in pretending that they interest me.

I don't know. Is the PC losing limelight? I'm not sure it ever really was in the limelight. Very rarely is it a focal point for major titles and I don't see that as being less true now than it used to be (see Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 for instance). The PC just keeps on going while the rest come and go.

It's like what they say about adventure games. They make as much money as they used to. It's just that there are a load of other games now and many of them make a lot more.

What's really changed is the number of closed platforms out there. Especially when you take into account mobile devices. The market is simply a lot larger. The PC therefore has a smaller share of that market than it would otherwise. But I'm seeing no indication that the market is actually decreasing. It's just not expanding as rapidly as these more temporary closed platform markets.

That said, I think that we'll see the PC gaming market increase as poorer countries see their economies grow.

Yeah I'm not saying they are bad. But for example, Dead Space got me bored after it aped SystemShock2 for the nth time, while I must admit it really succeeded in eliminating the HUD in a nice manner. I also liked ME, it wasn't a real RPG, but it was a nice drawback to classic sci-fi, then ME2 came along and it was many steps below the first one. I wasn't interested DAO, I thought it was some crappy generic fantasy crapfest, but shortly before DA2 release I got it and loved it, only to be left playing one of the worst sequels in history. Mirror's Edge was again, a good concept that publishers fucked up by forcing the devs to add the most out of place and crappy combat to a game about jumping.

Yeah they are not bad games - even COD - its just they would have been a lot better if they weren't dumbed down and made by publishers for whatever idea of gamers publishers have. How can they not sell better than 99.9% of indies when they are made for the lowest common denominator of GRAPHX-ACTION-BOOBS and have 20 million dollar marketing campaigns??? There was a time when a teams were focused on releasing games made by gamers for gamers. If you can't see the difference between the wonders of yesterday and the $50 million crap of today... this is why I hope the KICKSTARTER way succeeds in the coming years. Indies are either crappy or good games that 90% just don't appeal to me (how can they make a compelling and deep adventure, RPG or shooter with their limited resources anyway?), AAA games are also either crappy or good games that leave me with a sour taste in my mouth... now 1M-3M projects that cater to my sweet spot? Fuck yeah.

I meant general PC usage. I could see real PC systems in house dropping like flies while people switch to tablets, set-top boxes and other closed systems.

Honestly stuff like iOS is probably the future of indie development. You never know though, we shall see.

I agree with the games have to reach their sweet spot statement to me that sweet spot used to be last gen (I.E. GameCube PS2 Xbox And PC games from 2001-2005)

Could be. At least when they make a new engine.

But I like nice graphics and Boobs. :P
Could live without a lot of the marketing though.

I was predicting an upsurge in global computer usage as developing economies grow. But who knows? Maybe most that only want the internet will skip desktop PCs entirely?

But yeah, I don't really know what's a sound prediction when it comes to the future of the PC. I certainly don't think that many of these claims that we'll all be using tablets holds water. Tablets are only really advantageous in that they're portable. If you're stuck behind a desk then the advantage is lost.

I think that it is a mix between, some, old games being great and nostalgia affecting our experience. Some of the older games are definitely better, I won't list examples at this time. But some experiences, with newer games, are clouded by nostalgia.

I said I wouldn't list any examples, but I feel like I need to now. For instance, compare the old Syndicate with the new, First Person Shooter (FPS), Syndicate (yes, I believe the new game was a failure even though I hadn't played the original at the time). The original Syndicate is adored by numerous people, for various reasons. I won't assume to know what those reasons are (unless a survey is performed). The original utilized elements of rpg and strategy. I think it did this well. The new Syndicate, as an FPS, showed promise; but, I believe it ultimately failed.

I do enjoy FPS games more than, most, other types of games, especially if it utilizes elements of strategy and or rpg. Syndicate, by EA/Starbreeze, did have some elements of strategy, though I believe it didn't go deep enough. (In my opinion) I think Syndicate should have had a far deeper experience, that I believe Tactical Shooters provide. Although, I probably would have been bummed about being a mere foot soldier, either way. That is how I view it, anyway.

The game could have been more like Dues Ex: Human Revolution, and I would have enjoyed it a lot more. I've only played a limited amount of either game, so I can't really say if I've missed anything. I really think Syndicate is a good example, but I would like to hear others? :)

Oh piss off. I did read what people said. The vast majority of them said that there have always been bad games, and have always been good games. Perhaps get your glasses checked, dude.

Heh, I remember these debates about mass taste from 10 years ago. And since it's GOG I guess I'm not alone here :)

Thing is, some ppl claimed it's the same as in the movie industry and I don't think so. I think game indrustry is way better off than its older sister.

I believe there are more quality mainstream games than movies. In movie industry it's a pretty sure bet that an extremelly successful movie will be pretty stupid (Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich movies are case in point.)

But in gaming industry big budget games that are the pinnacle of stupidity like Prototype are actually not as popular and successful as big budget games that decided to be unique and original and inventive like Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed.

Maybe we as a human race are growing up and getting smarter and more discerning :)