News Ken Levine: "I wish PC gaming was more successful"

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/12/04/ken-levine-i-wish-pc-gaming-was-more-successful/1

Ken Levine, lead designer on BioShock, wishes PC gaming was a more successful market.

 

Stop hobbling your games with DRM, it wont make your sales any lower and it may even boost them.

OR

stop treating your customers like theifs

 

And look at Valve recent sales figures before you make a complain about less succes..

 

Ironic, given the news post before this...

 

Agreed.

Also... Levine should go talk to Valve; they seem to be happy with the status quo.

 

Valve or Blizzard, they're both good.

 

Someone should show him the sales figures released by Valve yesterday.

 

Consoles are more successful than PC for a few reasons:

1) Ease of accessibility.
2) You use your TV (Most people have one)
3) No Viruses
4) Insert and play
5) Low initial cost
6) You don't need to be very technical
7) People are lazy
8) Things just work on a Console not so on a PC

What I don't understand is how consoles have not made the USB Keyboard and Mouse a valid interface yet.

What is stopping them from doing that?

 

Didn't Sony release an antivirus for the PS3 a while ago? And with internet enabled consoles, I wouldn't be surprised if console viruses start appearing...

Too many different possible keyboards and mice I guess, unless they release a specific one, and only that is fully supported officially (others may work, but equally might not). In fact, I don't understand why they don't - particularly Sony, since linux can be installed.

 

USB keyboards and mice can be used on PS3, however there are not many console gamers who like to use a mouse and keyboard when they're lying on the couch.

 

Its true. I first played through half life on my PS2 using a mouse and keyboard. It involved a plank of wood on my lap, not the best method but nicer than the ps2 controller.

 

Most keyboards and mice will work. A few of the "gamer" versions which require specific driver installs would be a problem but most use a standard driver. Even high end mice tend to do all the fancy stuff (on the fly dpi adjustment etc) on board so that isn't an issue.

 

Yeah, I know that, and you know that... but some of the less technologically inclined individuals out there might try plugging in their Logitech G15 and complaining when the LCD screen and all the extra stuff doesn't work.

 

Consoles are affordable plug n plug PCs. PC gaming was successful before the console boom in the late 90s. Cost and technical knowledge hinder the PCs success in the gaming industry.

Nictron mentioned lazy and I think that's also a big factor on all fronts. Game devs have jumped on the easy train when it comes to programming games. Why program to meet multiple PCs specs, when you can program on a pre-determined hardware setup?

I still prefer my PC over my 360.

 

i dont see why it should be one or the other. Both PCs and consoles have valid use cases and user communities. I really dont understand developers pushing people around from one platform to the next.

 

ironic considering Valve just released hugely impressive sales figures

 

I wonder if they will be still happy when they are half way through development on a numbr of console titles and then Sony, Nintendo or MS pull the plug on their current hardware range and introduce a new toy that everyone wants games for at launch...

PC's will always be around in some form or another, and while they are, and people are familar with them , there will always be a demand for games (of a wide variety).

 

They make money of controller, so that why MS won't support mouse and KB

 

They could easily sell a X360 keyboard and mouse if they wanted to its not like ms don't already make their own peripherals for pcs.

 

Not quite on topic but this has been bothering me for a while. One thing I never see considered in these console vs PC threads is the question of where consoles would be without the PC gaming market ?

There is no doubt the continual push for performance would still exist but without the hardcore frames per second junkies would the advancement to ever smaller silicon feature size have been so rapid ? Someone has to pay for the continual R&D costs.

What is the life of a console ? Honestly I don't know off the top of my head, five years maybe six ? This is would represent about five generations of GPU technology, multiplied by the two main manufacturers makes for a whole lot of development while allowing a chance for correction should one set of features or one entire generation fail to make the grade. Once again this is funded by PC gamers.

Imagine for a moment a world without PC gaming. Five years between GPU refreshes does not sound good for ATI, NVIDIA or in the long run the gaming public. Shorter console life time would create compatibility headaches, eat into profits due to increased development costs and lead to resentment from the average customer.

Finally I come to content. The console manufacturers have the final word on what is and is not suitable for their target market. It's easy to say in our current time that they are quite flexible in this regard, but do not think for one moment that the current situation is eternal. It is one thing when a game developer is taken to task by the moral out cries and general media, it is another thing entirely when an international cooperation is subject to their wrath.

Just something I sometimes ponder. In spite of Microsoft's efforts the PC is an open platform and has always been a hot bed of technical innovation. I wish the industry doom sayers would look further than their short term profits as I think the death of PC gaming would have far reaching consequences for us all.