Sorry the image just came with all that other unrelated shit.  The top graph is clearly what I was talking about and I don't see the issue with it- it's cited data. As to the "cherry picking"; I'm no fandroid, but the massive influx of games like Farmville is something that seems to get ignored by traditional gamers. Feel free and dispute the data with an argument. I too was a bit surprised when I read it - so who knows, might be an unrealiable methodology . But as it stands you choose to post a vapid contentless criticism which doesn't really inform the discussion.

On an unrelated note, I see you liked Future Cop LAPD- damn underated game I'd say.

The earlier qoutes John Carmack made that you are refering to are dated and occured before he released Rage. At the time of his earlier statements he seemed upset that the PC version was capable of being much better if he had chosen to focus on PC rather then consoles. However his later opinion shows he has seen the mistake he made when he initially made those comments. To make the PC game that actually delivers what he refered to in the earlier comments would require much larger financial resources, it would also mean compromising the quality of the console games. Focusing entirely on technical improvement over entertainment value which would lead to a inferior product in the long run.

John addresses almost every issue he brought up in your earlier comment. Showing the falacy in it and how he has come to a different train of thought. As for me being too young and thinking the PC has been dying for twenty plus years that is simply not true. I had an Amiga, Commodore 64 and an early Apple computer within the first five or so years of my life. I also had an Atari 2600 my mom was pretty poor and my uncles were insainly obsessed with gaming and computers. They used to give my family all their old computers and games and my mom couldn't afford the newer consoles. As such I grew up playing games on Atari as well as Amiga primarily the Commodore 64 I didn't like as much and Apple's computer had something wrong with it when we got it.

I myself didn't game on computers primarily after N64 came around. But that doesn't mean I think computer gaming died most big games released saw release on PC and tons of exclusives found their way to the platform. Today I don't think PC gaming is dead and never suggested it was. I said it is no longer the priority and shouldn't be, that is an opinion I have held for a while. But that doesn't mean I think PC gaming is dead or should die.

Now lets address the proganda you are trying to use to support a very flawed ideology. The first stats are of game reveniew suggesting PC's brought in 11-billion dollars of review while consoles only brought in around 8. What it fails to mention is how much of that reveniew was actually brought in by game sales themselves? It also fails to mention how much of that reveniew actually comes from mainstream games and not the one person made games and social network titles that actually make the money on PC's. Now you claim this is a bias against casual consumers but the article and OP was about John Carmack and id games now how would the sales of social network, 99cent downloads and free to play titles as well as even subscription games make PC appetizing to a developer who creates an entirely different product?

Price range of new games is also laughable. Wii/PS3/360 games all up to 99$ each and PC only 79.99$ in what alternate reality is this figure from? Sounds like someone just made a figure up I have never known a game (Software only) on Wii to sell for 99.99$ in fact I don't even know of a 360 or PS3 game (Software only) that sold for 99.99$ I may have missed a title but I certainly have not seen one that I recall. Now I have seen software on PC for 89.99$. If you include collector edition software on PC and aren't including games with things like statues and goggles etc...etc.. StarCraft II collectors edition carries a 100$ price tag.

Then the price range again is flawed since this article clearly mentions games where you pay to play online or free to play games in which you need to pay for content in order to enjoy the game. Considering the profit made from the game comes from this content you can't ignore it and say the average PC game retails for so little. Fact is I recently talked to Microsoft and Robot Entertainment about AOE:Online I was told about how it was free to play. I played the version at PAX and noticed things were missing I asked the developer he said if I wanted to play the full campaign with the Greek's I would need a pay tens of dollars. I then asked about playing with other civ's and unlocking all of the technology upgrades that the game offered. He ended up telling me the current price tag for the entire game would cost over 200$ and as they developed new content would climb even higher.

I told him I was upset because AOE games in the past offered all those features for free. He then told me that the pricing was created so that people of all budgets could play AOE. People could play for free or they could choose to play as much as they wanted not paying the full retail price unless they wanted to experiance everything. He then told me that content in the future would expand the game further, but I asked him if the 200$ would include any future content. He told me I could probably pay up to another 100$ or so to get all the future content.

This should be recognized in the pricing listed on the flyer. Console games come complete (Campaign, playable characters, multiplayer) all for a single price of 69.99$-89.99$ According to Robot entertainment in order for me to enjoy the whole game I would have only paid 69.99$ for in the past I would now pay upwards of 200$. Thats not including future DLC thats just to enjoy the full game availible at launch. So DLC on consoles costs what 10-15$ so to play your game completely with all the content that ever will be released and the possibility of two or so DLC packs your talking a retail price of 100-120$ while a PC title could cost 100's upon 100's of dollars to completely enjoy (Including future DLC).

Next the pay to play stats, are those stats exclusively from PC's or are they including game consoles? Since X-Box Live easily brings in more profit and users then even WoW I'd say this fact is irrelevant in proving PC gaming is in any way challenging consoles. Share of software digitally downloaded again is that talking just PC? Is it talking just consoles? Is it including smart phone games? From what the article says I'd conclude it is probably refering to the entire industry in which case 20% is horrifically low in fact I'd expect it to be closer to 50%. Then the other question is of those titles how many were free how many were 99cent titles? You can't make a good argument for supporting PC based on this fact.

What type of online game is played most. Another flawed argument for PC. Firstly the games belonging to the winning catagory are often completely free to play online or cost very little to. Secondly the genre's represented as first also have a strong presence on game consoles being played online all the time. Just ask Hasbro how successful there games have been on consoles you will note that they have been vastly successful. Also note according to that chart downloadable games the center peice of profit on PC make up only 10% but that isn't relevant because we can't tell the perametres behind the chart. Does downloadable games include Steam titles for example and if it doesn't then what does it really mean? Surely not dowloadable games in general rather specific genre's used to make the number seem smaller then it is in reality.

The argument about the growth of the games industry doesn't have anything to do with PC's as a viable gaming platform so that can be tossed out.

Lastly the software figures given comparing one if not the highest selling PC games of recent times against the lowest selling version of what is apparently EA's top selling game this generation. Well according to VGChartz the 360 version of NCAA Football 11 sold 840,000, also the premise that NCAA Football 11 is the best selling EAGame this generation is also wrong Left 4 Dead sold 3,300,000 copies on 360 alone which actually matches StarCraft II's sales over all on PC exactly 3,300,000. A quick glanse at sales figures for PC shows StarCraft II to be the single highest selling PC game this generation excluding expansion packs (Pretty much DLC) for games that existed prior to the start of the generation.

Lets take a look at the highest selling console game for comparison to StarCraft 2 (Not including WiiSports as it was bundled) is Mario Kart Wii with a whopping 28,450,000 copies sold or how about the highest selling game on 360 CoD:Black Ops 13,050,000 and on PS3 is CoD Black Ops which sold 10,640,000 copies. But of course that is comparing the highest selling title on all platforms but what about the highest selling title on multiplatform Black Ops how much did it sell on PC 1,190,000 copies. Proving that even the most successful mutliplatform game still sells way poorer on PC then it does on consoles, only the Wii version of Black Ops sold fewer copies then the PC version but not by much only 120,000 unit difference. That is pathetic the Wii version was vastly inferior and marketed so poorly most consumers didn't know it existed.

The other facts are good for a chuckle such as console reliability being so low. What about PC and laptop reliability? I hear about exploding batteries and screens that fall apart. Then throw in glitches and problems like the blue screen of death not to mention the many viruses which are unavoidable but not really effecting console reliability. Even that proves consoles are just as reliable as computers if not more so.

Face it PC gaming may not be dead, but it is certainly the poorest platform to release games on in almost every aspect. The only thing it has going for it is that computers are always updated and as such can over spec's superior to consoles. But specs don't make good games and cost a fortune to take advantage of. Making PC the least attractive platform for any developer who plans on creating a serious game that isn't an MMO exclusive to PC. Even MMO's and RTS games traditionally exclusive genre's to PC have had mass success on consoles maybe not as much as PC but show that PC isn't even the only choice for those genres.

Sorry to everyone for my hell of a long post. But I thought each fact in that sheet was flawed and needed to be explained further.

I was referring to the topic John Carmack's opinion and what he said and not suggesting PC gaming is dead or that non-maintream games aren't games. Fact is a free to play title or a social network game or a 99cent game being massively successful doesn't mean shit to John Carmack as he develops mainstream games.

Arguing John Carmack or almost any other console game developer should support PC because some social games and such are making millions is illogical. Its like going to the most successful restaurant in New York and saying "Hey McDonalds serves more customers you should switch to fast food".

Yes social network games are games but they are not the games John or most of the other console/pc mainstream developers make. EA and UbiSoft and such have taken notice to the emergence of these successful PC games and have created new studios and departments within existing ones to make products for that market.

But suggesting id goes from making Rage to 99cent games, free to play, subscription based online games or social network titles is nuts. For the average company supporting both PC and console, consoles are the best option for the kind of content they are releasing. PC is least important to big budget game designers or developers who actually try and create high quality software.

As for John Carmack's comments, his old comments are included in many articles talking about his most recent comments because they contradict each other and are directly related. His comments about PC support for Rage being inferior and how if PC had been the primary platform it could have looked far better and utilized ten times the power, these comments were made in June around E3. While his latest comments which this thread is based on were made only days ago and talk about how a superior PC version would lead to poorer quality console versions much higher development costs and a shift of effort towards technical prowess over quality of the experience.

interestingly i agree.

i'd ;ove to see hellgate london on home consoles

his threads are easy to like, but always conflicting and not easy to figure out but who doesn't mind a brain twister  but he is lacking the quality he once had.

*whispers*

just like Nintendo?

Firstly, Cool story bro.

Secondly, alright, you have convinced me. PC gaming is not dying. Now savor this moment as it does not happen often on the internet. 

i new  Rol had something in common with one of those companies and you helped me figure out which one, but unlike Nintendo when Rol falls he gets back up

The reason I didn't comment more was I was in a hurry and didn't have time ,  so  I left the comment that to me summed up the article and left others to defend it attack it or ignore it.

Now down to brass tacks , I don't think PC gaming is dead, I do think traditional gaming was in decline on the PC but like many segments that have decline followed by restructure , it  tends to stabilise some what, People mention Steam in regards to healthy PC gaming and forget the bricks and mortar decline and other underlying factors that have contributed to its success.

Another thing is peoples perception of  PC gaming , with a lot of people defining it as the type of games made by game company's that either stayed PC only , PC was their first port of call or the successful platform , hence you hear the generic term traditional PC games,like many such terms this was always clouded mainly because the differentiation is hardware based and has now become damn right foggy , This makes it harder to categorically state PC gaming is in decline because some parts are and some parts aren't and we are talking about the whole.

On to cherry picking,  Mention is made of consoles reliability (not sure why but it was there none the less) with out any mention of PC reliability as if it lives in a vacuum and mobo's and other components dying doesn't count .  Next picking one month when Starcraft 2  happened to be on top to some how show the future  growth of PC gaming ,  yes again very selective.

Most of the rest of the chart mentions video gaming in general not PC , ie 72% of the US population plays video games , digital Dl on the rise although  09 and10 where  both 8% and these figures though not PC specific are used to justify PC growth.

, .