Research analyst: Retail PC gaming IS dying

(sigh)

The numbers don't lie.

in b4 piracy

Piracy is a part of it, but basically:

PC = $600+ having to constantly upgrade Console = $300

Now that consoles have hard drives and are getting closer to P Cs...

At some point, we'll have PC/console combos like the Commodore64. And I'll be happy.

That said, given a choice between a PC and a console version of a game, I'll go with the PC version.

What about Digital Distribution?

^Yeah, what about Steam and Impulse?

P Cs are only expensive if you want to play bleeding edge games, and even then, it's only because consoles are subsidized.

Also the research is only stating the obvious. Buying games in stores is stupid and outdated. This has no bearing on the strength of PC gaming in general.

If anything, I'd say P Cs are more likely to replace consoles than the other way around. Once hardware cost no longer becomes an issue, the console business model doesn't have much going for it.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:40:47 PM by storyyeller

Well, given how PC sales from Digital Distribution (including Steam) have now been estimated to outnumber physical retail sales...

I say PC gaming is alive and kicking, just the retail part "dying". I still buy almost exclusively through such method nowadays.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:42:14 PM by EarlOfSandvich

I don't think this is particularly sad, since even the article states that it's pretty much just moving to digital distribution. And, I mean, it's not terribly surprising. With the way DRM works, there's little benefit to having a physical copy of a PC game. You can't sell PC games back to a retailer, or buy them used for a lower price. You can't bring them to a friend's house, pop the disk in, and play. And, unlike with console games, with certain DRM schemes, there's no guarantee that having the disk means you'll be able to play it as long as you own it. The only reason to have a physical copy of a PC game is if you're making a collection.

The retailers just add the cost of gas or shipping and a time investment to get what is effectively the same package. Oftentimes for a higher price, too.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:42:37 PM by Miijhal

I remember when I bought Portal in a store. All the box contained was a product key and an installer program that downloaded Steam for you.

That was the last time I've bought a game in a store.

When I've bought The Orange Box at a local video game store in August 2009, that's when I first heard about Steam. And since then, I've only ever bought one PC game on retail (Street Fighter IV). But after that, since January 2010, I've only ever bought through digital distribution.

The only way I'll get games in retail now is if they are older games I wouldn't otherwise get through Digital Distribution.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:58:12 PM by EarlOfSandvich

I hate digital distribution, I want a box with a game inside that isn't held hostage by activation servers. The decline of retail and rise of digital distribution is very hisheartening.

Yeah, that doesn't really mean much, given that I'm pretty sure most PC gamers use Steam or similar services.

What doesn't mean much?

I'm with you, Talby. I despise digital distribution. I really like having shiny collection of games to physically browse. I like manuals, and the art that's usually in them. I like having something physical for my money. I loved Feelies, and greatly mourn their passing.

And I really like being able to resell them if the game turns out to be terrible or has no replay value.

It's probably for all those reasons I'm a console rather than PC gamer. Although that's trending towards digital distribution, too, dammit all.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:21:19 PM by ccoa

it's only because consoles are subsidized.

Are you sure you don't mean "standardized"? Last I checked the government does not pay a cent to produce, maintain, repair or sell game consoles.

I hate physical games because it's much harder for me to keep track of them, and they take up space. Even if it weren't more convenient and cheaper, I'd still avoid them because it's just unpleasant to deal with them.

Subsidized by the company that paid for its development, manufacture, and distribution, not subsidized by the government.

I hate digital games because they are much harder for me to keep when I change computers, and they take up hard drive space. Even though they are cheaper and easier to attain, I still avoid them because of DRM.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:28:43 PM by Canondorf

^^^ Consoles are often sold at a loss these days to keep hardware sales up, in the hope that software sales will make up for it. So in way, the console manufacturer is subsidizing their own console.

And ^ ninja.

^^^^ I've been playing a lot more console games lately because of this. I'm really getting sick of issues with DRM, online activation, patching, etc.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:29:05 PM by Talby

That's been console industry standard since the 1990s.

Consoles haven't been comparable to PC's since the 1990's.

The writing's on the wall. Within the next 10 years by and large there will no longer be physical copies of video games produced... and movies and music too. Gamestop will go the way of Blockbuster and Tower Records (good riddance). Everything will be purchased through online marketplaces and downloaded directly to consoles and/or various smart devices. Sure, there will be nostalgics who cherish physical boxed copies similar to vinyl record collectors, but they will be a small minority (hold on to your game discs by the way, odds are they'll be collectors items some day).

What we think of as P Cs will sort of change over the next 10 years. There's going to be a convergence. P Cs are going to become more like smart devices and consoles (just like smart devices and consoles are becoming more like P Cs). P Cs will become smaller and cheaper. No more monolithic towers, just Nettops and other small form factors. Building your own PC will gradually become a thing of the past, mostly because fairly powerful ones will be pretty cheap (think $200-$300 at Target or Walmart). With GPUs and CPUs sharing the same die and fast solid state drives P Cs will be fast lower power, and compact. Microsoft, Google, and Apple will war it out with their respective O Ses for P Cs and smart devices.

They've been saying that since the mid-90's. I'm not holding my breath.

Interesting that the article completely ignores the independent gaming scene when declaring the death of PC gaming. That part of the PC gaming market is actually on the uptick.

BUT, THEN NO MORE FEELIE!!!

edited 28th Feb '11 8:58:13 PM by fringeman

I'm still occasionally getting physical copies, mostly for the feelies or because with Steam games, it's a way of getting them far cheaper than on actual Steam (Steam, unlike the EA Store or Impulse, uses country restrictions only to affect availability (f.e. I can't buy Rockstar games via Steam, but Americans can), not MSR Ps), but then I can de-localize them (Half-Life 2's localization isn't as crappy as the market average, but it ain't pretty AT ALL) because Steam is awesomesauce and lets you do that whenever you want.

Also, they said that because of piracy (and sharing games) way back in the nineties. PC gamers are still around.

Also also, now that that law of computing power growth no longer functions (yay, physics, there haven't been any major improvements in consumer-level processor tech over the past two years, IIRC), you only need to buy a good comp00ter once and stick with it for far longer than you would a console. If you get a bleeding-edge motherboard and meh components to start with, you won't spend too much initially and can upgrade it into a killer rig, especially since until a new console generation rolls around, you will only have to worry about PC exclusives running weirdly on your rig - console standardization, among other things, means that console ports will generally have the same sys reqs on the PC.