I've regged to post a comment. Well, more of an open letter really. I thank you in advance for taking the time to get through it. I've worked in the games industry for a very long time and you're commenting on an area that’s basically my job. Let me first start by saying that it's of relatively little use talking about how flawed a particular study is. In fact the study in question isn't really flawed at all - NPD state exactly what they're counting and how. You, and your readers, go to spectacular lengths to say how it’s all wrong... but it isn’t. It doesn’t claim to be anything other than what it is. No amount of wishing that PC gaming is a bigger market than it is by any of the readers of this site will actually change that. Yes we all tend to wish our hobby is really big and great and thriving so there's a natural inclination to want to attack anyone that says it's not doing so well but I find this article and subsequent forum posts remarkably devoid of clear thinking on the issue. You talk about why people like Valve don't release details of digital distribution. There's a simple reason for that, the numbers aren't that impressive. If you're trying to entice developers and publishers to your platform it doesn't pay to point out that you're a little over 4% of the PC games sale by volume. They will tell you, and you can find out exactly what EA’s DD revenue if you simply looked. But they don’t crow it from the rooftops until it impressive. That’s called marketing. You also drift around the point by saying that non-retail, non-core games are in fact PC games. And that these are bought via the Internet. So that's part of the PC games scene too. Er well sure, right, but now you're just shifting your definition of PC gaming and NPD never claimed to cover that stuff. And you know what, we don't care anyway. That's because the ramifications, and this is a key issue which you don't seem to be keen to address, of the decline of the PC gaming platform in core games is that the sales don’t necessarily justify the big budgets to develop on that platform. Perhaps the greatest flaw in this article is the claim that the industry has no data for digital distribution but has loads of data regarding levels of piracy, with the bizarre conclusion that the industry cares more about what's pirated than what's sold. Your glaring critical error is that there’s an impetus to talk about how much piracy there is. There is no impetus to talk about the numbers on digital distribution for reasons that I've pointed out. You confuse there not being a big unit-sales chart for digital distribution with the fact the industry doesn't know. It does know. I've seen countless projections of the exactly this kind of data. Because they didn't tell YOU, then they clearly don't know? Come on now. Most publishers are looking very heavily at DD. Some are already doing it including EA. If a game was selling via their own download service and they were making a ton of money they’d go great and keep making PC games no? In fact digital distribution is pretty bad right now. EA has its own abysmal thing. You have some half supported DD only republishers such as Direct2Drive in the US and Metaboli (on a strange rental basis) and really it’s only Valve doing it in a way that is of high quality. But it’s still vanishingly small and it’s fractured. Where as you look at Xbox Live Arcade and there’s a common, superb platform which is looking very attractive to those same guys that used to make little games on the PC and tried to flog them via digital distribution. The industry does NOT want PC gaming to fail. The industry wants to make money from PC games. In many regards the PC is a pleasant platform to deal with because one can handle your own route to market, QA and not have to hand over big wedges to the platform holder. The industry is a business. It makes games on the PC because they sell. When they don't sell, the industry goes elsewhere. It does not inherently want PC gaming to fail. For Christ's sake the combined might of Intel, Microsoft and the entire body of advertisers on this web site - do you think they want PC gaming to fail? Or are they not part of the industry? Finally we have some completely incoherent rant about how 'giant conglomerates' have stomped the indy devs into the ground, eaten your babies and created some 'wasteland' which of course is resulting in no good PC games. Err yeah except 2007 was the best PC year for PC gaming ever. And the consolidation, which is what you're actually talking about, has nothing to do with evil conglomerates out to **** over users, and everything to do with the massively increasingly cost and complexity of game development. Development costs vast sums of money now. Porting games across multiple platforms using hideously expensive in-house developed technology etc is just plain more efficient. There are still Indys but they find it quite hard to get to fund a game and to get to market. Maybe if PC gamers bought more games they could afford to hang around and not sell their family business out to a publically listed publisher. But they don’t. You even use Call of Duty '76' as some insult to the current status quo. Right, you mean Call of Duty 4 then - an absolutely amazing game developed by a shining light of PC Game Developers, Infinity Ward. The company having being originally formed by a splinter group of developers from an evil conglomerate who wanted to make a really great WW2 game. Later on they were acquired by Activision which set up the developers nicely financially and meant they didn't have to worry about paying the bills, while they continued to make great games. And this is typical of the consolidation, splinter, reaquire nature of the games industry. It happens a LOT in the UK, take a look around Leamington Spa for starters. If that's your big example of evil conglomerates then I have to call FAIL on all levels. Great game. Great developer. Also arrived on multiple platforms with each being bloody great and catering for a wide range of game players. Looks like a success story to me. The real consequence of the failure of the PC as a gaming platform means that PC-specific features are less likely to get in games. Like the hideous console-like menu on UT4 for example. But it's still pretty easy to do a PC game given they tend to be developed side by side with the 360 version. Certain genres of game will be deemed to not even be worth doing on the PC since they'll sell near zero. Otherwise just expect more console features and controls and fewer PC specific multiplayer features and all that. That’s happening because while you write articles about how the industry has it all wrong, how the industry will ‘chuckle’, get bigger and generally be Evil, the reality is that the problem with the PC gaming platform is that PC gamers don't BUY games. Amazingly they think nothing of lashing out stupid sums of money on outrageous PC hardware but actually buying the handful of amazing games that came out in 2007? Nah! Be honest. How many did you buy? I know what this is like because I’ve been part of the problem. My friends, myself, virtually everyone I know into hard-core PC gaming. All pirating games. All spending stupid sums on high-end graphics cards. It’s at the very centre of the culture of PC gaming and as with any close-knit community of people no matter what evils they engage in they always find a way to lend a sympathetic ear to one another and justify what they’re doing with vague arguments and evil big corporate out to **** you over. Dude, you’re in your mid 30s right? It’s time to let go of the self delusion and apply some genuine critical thinking here. You'd be doing everyone a much bigger favour if you examined this culture and thought about what you could do to actually help hard working PC game developers than writing ranting incoherent, inaccurate and counter-productive articles about how it's somehow everyone else's fault.