Nice video but I really don't see him believing what he's saying. He just wanted to have something interesting to say.

My personal experience is that after 4 years of laptops in my life I had the absolute urge of getting a Desktop and I spent what for me is a lot of money in a computer that rocks and I couldn't be more happy about it.

As long as there are costumers who prefer Desktop (even if younger generations stick to their devices) and as long as it the the standard at working points, I don't see it going away.

The same guy made this video a few months ago so I have trouble taking anything he says seriously.

One of the biggest things hurting PC games is there's nothing that enforces quality.  While Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo may have closed systems, that closed system lets them enforce a measure of quality.  The process is different for all three, but there are basic requirements that say the game must work and be above a certain bar.  PC has nothing like that.

Because of that, more time is spent on the console versions of a game and the PC is just kind of there.  If something gets fixed in the process, cool, if not, oh well.  More attention is *always* put on the console versions if there is one because the big three can say no, you can't release this game but you can release whatever you want on the PC.

Now it's obviously in the developers best interest to release as good of a product as possible, but when it comes down to the wire and you have a minor bug that keeps your game from getting certified on a console and a major bug that makes the PC version crash, the console bug will be fixed and the PC one will be put further down the list.  Always.

You can't deny with that control comes advantages.  Every 360 runs just like every other 360.  The developer knows exactly what the target platform is and they can optimize specifically for that.  Sure, the graphics card on my 360 may be five years old, but that doesn't mean the games look bad by any means.  Also, like I said in my previous posts, the console enforce certain standards.

With the PC, there's an infinite variety of setups and it's unreasonable to ask developers to provide for even most setups.  There are just too many options.  It's hard on the developer and it's confusing for the general consumer.  On top of that, there are no standards.  It does make it easier for indie devs which is great, but it also means the PC version will almost always take a back seat to the console versions.  Finally, consoles have a completely invisible to the user DRM while most every PC game has some sort of cumbersome DRM (some worse than others, some not-so-bad).

And I totally agree that modding is a great thing, the games industry wouldn't be near where it is now without it.  That said, it isn't the thing that will keep PC gaming going and I believe you are the one that told me you refuse to pay for a broken or bad game so why do you think it's better or worthwhile for the community to fix a broken/bad game?

What's better to you?  Better quality game or better graphics?

But he is right in the first 1/3rd. FPSes are ruining gaming. Though he missed the point it only started being retarded when they started being made for the lowest common denominator. Remember when FPSes didn't have the whole soldier bullshit and you were literally moving at speeds of cars and actually required reflexes? When you could carry more than 3 guns and the option of 50 others, which were in fact the same thing as the original 3? What happened to a lightning gun that can shoot ninja stars, guns which shoot 6 rockets at a time, perosnal flak cannons, personal cannons that shoot cnanonballs bigger than you?

Though, his arugment about 3rd person over 1st person just sounds like the argument of a scrub who can't play well enough.

Gaming matured, that's what happened. Over the top action had to go and make space for realism. That's why you are moving slow now. That's why you can only carry a couple of weapons at any given time. That's why your health regenerates automatically.

...wait. That doesn't make sense.

Sony is to blame. Ever since they've entered the home console arena, they have worked hard to change the perception of the market by manipulating game journalists. Today the Playstation brand is the golden standard in gaming (at least in Europe and most of the world) and most websites will tell you in their editorials and articles that all consoles should strive to be like the PS3. First person shooters didn't mature, but Killzone 2 was put on a pedestal to become the standard for the genre. That's the point where things started to go downhill.

In the last few years we've repeatedly had news claiming that the money is on consoles and that the PC isn't worth it anymore. This lines up perfectly with what Sony wants, full control over gaming. They realized that they don't have a chance to get the major American talent on their console, so they focused on the other big thing: The Japanese talent. However, that was predominantly working on the SNES, so they did everything they could to build the perception which consoles was the way to go, along with the obvious moneyhats of course.

Feel free to write this off as a silly conspiracy theory.

Gaming matured, that's what happened. Over the top action had to go and make space for realism. That's why you are moving slow now. That's why you can only carry a couple of weapons at any given time. That's why your health regenerates automatically.

...wait. That doesn't make sense.

Microsoft is to blame. Ever since they've entered the home console arena, they have worked hard to change the perception of the market by manipulating game journalists. Today the Xbox brand is the golden standard in gaming (at least in the USA) and most websites will tell you in their editorials and articles that all consoles should strive to be like the 360. First person shooters didn't mature, but Halo was put on a pedestal to become the standard for the genre. That's the point where things started to go downhill.

In the last few years we've repeatedly had news claiming that the money is on consoles and that the PC isn't worth it anymore. This lines up perfectly with what Microsoft wants, full control over gaming. They realized that they don't have a chance to get the major Japanese talent on their console, so they focused on the other big thing: The American talent. However, that was predominantly working on the PC, so they did everything they could to build the perception that consoles are the way to go, along with the obvious moneyhats of course.

Feel free to write this off as a silly conspiracy theory.