actually this is why games get reissued with updated codes. The original Wolf 3d I have on a floppy disc is not the same coding as the one I have on CD but the general essance of the game holds true. There is a reason why Doom 3D is offered on Steam now. As for Duke, umm... i think it can run... or an updated version can at least.

And processor speed isnt capped at all. We are jsut working on multicore systems right now, there will be a point once we hit 32nm or below that core speeds will be increased by 2 or 3 times. Also thanks to XP's design (sadly not vista) DoS games can be ran. And im talking original games off the floppies. I can run my original wolf 3d. =D 

I am a lapsed PC gamer, I admit. I lost interest after the FMV game hype of the mid-90s died off and adventure games died. Consoles ended up offering something for me that the PC no longer did: adventure without complex controls mucking everything up, in the form of console RPGs. Other than Sims and Sims 2, my PC's not used for gaming much at all any more.

Oh, and console games are experiencing the kind of longevity you're mentioning now, too. Mostly on the Wii's Virtual Console, but 360 Arcade and PSN are also bringing back old classics and garnering new appreciation for them.

I'm sorry, do you have any source for this or are you just saying it?

Thats the best thing about PC gaming the games are always at the stores, the package deals from EA and the likes 5 games for $25 is unbeatable.

 its common knowledge... please ask Gabe Nowell why he prefers PC and why Valve is so successful. It wasnt just because they made a damn good game.

The biggest factor for PC development is it's cheap and easy. Really cheap. Much cheaper than on consoles in fact. PC development is so much easier than console development that games like Bioshock and Devil May Cry, which the developers don't expect to sell anywhere near as well on the PC, are being developed for the PC then ported to the consoles (the primary sales versions). This is because it's far easier and cheaper to build a game on the PC then port it to one (or both) consoles than it is to build a game for one console and port it to the other.

The data at the beginning of the thread is incomplete. It's missing many of the million selling PC games such as Warcraft III, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Starcraft (and expansions), Everquest, and about 100 others. It's simply very very flawed at the moment.

The final, and most important point, I'd like to discuss is digital distribution. Much of a game's sales now are done digitally. Steam and other digital distribution services make up a very large portion of PC game sales now. Valve reported over 70% of Orange Box's sales were made on Steam.

This is a huge deal folks. First of all, these sales aren't tracked by anyone. Second, nearly EVERY dollar here goes to the developer. Think about that for a moment. A $60 Xbox 360 game makes what? About $25 for the developer? At most? A $50 game sold on steam makes $50 for the developer. There is no retail markup. No huge publishing fees.

You people who think that the PC market is not a lucrative market are missing some really major factors. The PC software market is hardly dead. In fact PC software sales have experienced significant growth over the last few years according to Gabe Newell in a fairly recent interview.

 I wasnt really trying to point out sales data or anything. I was jsut trying to get the point that the industries are different and PC games have legs longer then console games.

it's common knowledge to who? and valve is pretty much online downloadings now with a few exception meaning it'll be there till the end of time for people to buy it. When UT3 and Crysis (I don't agree that Crysis is a flop btw) have to be distributed through physical mediums via retail markets, you think they'll order more copies if the initial units aren't moving? As for your comments about these old games still selling, I ask how many units and how much profit it's making?

And for common knowledge, here is an article from PC world calling it a flop.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140623-c,games/article.html

or an article here

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12/17/crysis_ut3_sales_disappoint_developers/1

and here is a forum of entirely PC users talking about the flop. I mean of all people...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1253388

so if you're sick of people talking about the flops, you're going to have to convince a lot of people.

Because the fact of the matter is, the sales were dissapointing whether or not it makes a profit or not.

And the make things worse, no one can make a clear argument about PC sales because nobody has the full data.

 do you realize that the gamers talking about it are newer PC gamers that dont understand the PC industry? and of course Epic is annoyed, they forgot to advertise the darn thing. If they advertised it as made by the creators of Gears of War all 360 owners would flock to their computers and be palying it right now and a ton of older UT fans would be upgrading and playing.

But still please read naz's post. 

Those PC gamers actually seem to know more about PCs than you do. 

I don't need to read his post but I did before you suggested it. I did not say anything about the status of the PC as a profitable platform. I am focusing on the sales of UT3 and Crysis and you never answered my questions or challenges and without any reasoning, say I'm wrong. UT3 is a flop on the PC and probably the PS3, too. If it's not going to sell big now, the small amounts sales it marginally collects over the years won't make it profitable. I don't even think it'll stay on the shelves. More and more games will be released and the UT3 will be forgotten especially when Epic releases another installment.