Valve on PC gaming

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Valve might not want to become the official champions of the PC platform, but damn are they good on it.

Their recent press event, purportedly about Steamcloud, was really about how the coverage on PC gaming is really bad.

Simple, elegant and straight-forward explanations are offered. And they're right. They're oh so right.

"This meeting that we're having here really should be done by Intel or Microsoft, companies that are a lot more central to the PC ecosystem, rather than just hearing about our perspective on these issues."

This kicked off a two-hour presentation, in which a number of Valve employees made the case for the PC as a robust, innovative platform.
(...)
According to Gartner Group data, there are over 260 million online PC gamers, with 255 million new PCs being sold in 2007. Steam alone has 15 million connected gamers, with 1.25 million peak connected gamers, and 191% year-over-year growth; Valve was quick to point out that Steam represents just one of many online distribution systems.

"This is a market that dwarfs the size of any of the proprietary closed platforms," Newell said. He noted that the vast difference in scale between PC and console platforms means that PC continues to be the platform with the most capital investment, allowing it to drive the innovation and technology development that eventually trickles down to consoles.

Newell then cited DFC Intelligence data showing that, while worldwide retail PC game sales have been relatively flat since about 2001, PC online sales have continually grown - that segment has traditionally not been tracked by widely-cited firms like NPD. With Valve's own products, it expects online sales to surpass retail sales within the next three months.
(...)
He stressed the importance of recognizing the size of the global market, particularly since digital distribution removes traditional barriers associated with retail games, such as shipping-related concerns.

Certain established markets like Germany and the Nordic countries, as well as emerging markets such as China and Russia, are, as Newell puts it, "leapfrogging the console generation" and being largely driven by the PC. Certain markets that can be difficult to reach via retail means can be highly accessible through digital distribution.
(...)
Holtman then expanded on Valve's success in Russia, a market that has traditionally frightened publishers away because of its widespread piracy. "Rampant piracy is just unserved customers," he argued. "Using Steam and Steamworks, we were able to address that."
Click to expand...

Pure poetry.

PC gaming #1
 
valve has always been a rock-solid company. i hated steam when i first got my hands on a beta quite a few years back - it wouldn't accept my half-life cd key and the online play seemed to lag a great deal more. i personally think that it has substantially improved, and i have no problem in saying that i think it's a great program and service.

to its credit though, i did completely make up my cd key for the original half-life once i lost the case.
 
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
+1 to Valve for slapping all of the "omigod pc gaming is dyingz0rz" bloggers in the face.
Click to expand...
you have to admit it could use some rejuvenation on the content front though...

but aside from that: PC for life! (or til they invent neural plugs or whatever)

edit: typo
 
SuAside said:
you have to admit it could use some rejuvination on the content front though...
Click to expand...

The solution to that is to keep porting the top selling console games to PC. It makes me smile when I see "Only on Xbox 360" games being ported to the PC (Gears of War, Mass Effect), often with new pc only content, and the previously available "DLC" being handed out for free.

As long as there are high-quality PC ports of those console "exclusive" games to help buffer the gap between the big name releases, we'll be fine as far as content goes.
 
You hear the line that rampant piracy is to blame for the decline of PC gaming, and I don't buy that at all.

I think the problem lies more in the nature of the content. Ever since doom and warcraft were released, many of the games released every year for PC are stale rehashes of those classics. Sure there's new bells and whistles, but rarely is there new (or even better in many cases) gameplay.

Crysis would be a prime example. I'll admit I've never played it, hell I haven't even seen a screenshot. But I did read an article where the devs of the game stated they would no longer make games only for the PC due to piracy, citing an 8 : 1 pirate to purchase ratio. The thing is a pirated copy doesn't equal = a lost sale. When you release a game that is little more than the yearly FPS system benchmark with no innovative gameplay of course piracy is going to be rampant, people don't want to pay 50 bucks for a game they aren't interested in as anything more than a system beefiness test. (sorry if this borders on "warez talk" merely trying to comment on the nature of the beast)

I'd wager declining PC's sales are due to marketing folks underestimating their market.

I've said it before,(not certain if it was here though) take a look at Civ IV. I haven't looked at any sales figures, but I'm pretty certain not only did it make money, but after 2 expansion packs I bet it's one of the more successful single player games of recent years. A turn based game with a fairly steep learning curve successful in this day and age???!!! what!!??? impossible!!

PC's are and will always be the superior platform, PC gaming is alive and well and I think It'll only get better.
 
The PC is only dying to companies that are stupid. Blizzard and Valve have rock solid games that run on a wide range of hardware. They employ copy protection that does not make the user jump through hoops, or attempts to take over the entire computer. They have good support staff who try to help users. They are constantly updating their games, and only release games after extensive bug testing. Each are PC exclusive and draw an insane amount of revenue.

The writing is on the fucking wall.
 
Valve's games aren't PC exclusive. HL was released on the PS2 with some PS2 only content (an excellent coop game), and TOB has been released on the 360 and ps3.
 
personally I think that Demos for programs should be made mainstream again, I think that would solve a good portion of the "warez" problems like crysis developers whine about so much. Also this would force developers to make a game that delivers what is promised (how many people will fork over $50+ to play a tech demo) RPGs would get more RPGish and so on. If you were annoyed by a 30 min demo why would you waste time DL'ing it =P

The Developers need to stop dumbing down the games to the point that we are left playing a pretty cattle shoot rushing us to the end with as little fuss as possible.
 
FCUK YEAR PC GAMIN

/goes back to TF2
Sua add me to friends list dammit

The whole "PC gaming is dead", "piracy killing PC gaming" is just sad propaganda.
 
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
Valve's games aren't PC exclusive. HL was released on the PS2 with some PS2 only content (an excellent coop game), and TOB has been released on the 360 and ps3.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I was going to put "mostly PC exclusive" but didn't. They were ported after they had already made a killing on PC.
 
Another reason for the decline of the PC gaming software, which I didn't see Valve siting, is how Intel bundles their own inferior integrated graphics chips onto the lower end systems. And then Joe Consumer buys the computer and then purchases one plain vanilla retail game (your average FPS, RTS, RPG, or flight sim). But it doesn't work. Or it works so poorly that you might think only the CPU was doing the rendering. And then he gets upset and doesn't want to mess with PC gaming again.

Sure Joe Consumer should be more knowledgeable about his computer purchases, and fork over a little more dough for a proper graphics card made by nVidia or AMD/ATI. But should Intel really be selling PC makers graphics chips that can't play most modern PC games? And should PC makers even offer PCs that can't play most modern PC games? Why not jack up the price a measely $30 (US) and include a low-end budget graphics card that will surpass the Intel integrated graphics in every way?
 
iridium_ionizer said:
But should Intel really be selling PC makers graphics chips that can't play most modern PC games?
Click to expand...

Yes, Intel should.

You forget that a lot of PCs sold are never intended for gaming. Intel should anticipate that market, as the graphic card manufacturers are almost purely engaged with the gaming and graphic editing market segments.

What Intel should do is provide better information, tho', them and the retailers.
 
Brother None said:
What Intel should do is provide better information, tho', them and the retailers.
Click to expand...
Along with the "Intel Inside" sticker they should include a "WARNING: This PC will not play PC games except for the most basic - Solitaire, Bejeweled, Line Rider, etc." sticker.
 
Valve is hands-down my favorite game company. No matter what they lead the industry and say shit how it is.

Kudos.
 
Maybe we should change from a Fallout fan forum to a Valve fan forum.

Fallout's gone to shit anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top