With the ever dwindling PC game market I wonder more and more about how successful a game can be target solely for PC. According the itfacts.biz http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P2726 and biz.gamedaily.com http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8854#8854 The total PC game sales decreased by 2% in 2004 and now accounts for only 15% of total video games sales. So as you can see designing a game solely for the PC means cutting yourself off from most of the market. Furthur the sales of PC game sales consisted of Strategy, juvinille, and shooters in that order. So I contiune to wonder about the PC's future as a primary game platform. I doubt the shooter market will last much longer on the PC since Halo and XBox live have shown that the Console can produce a shooter that is equal or better then one on the PC. The main reason they are still big on the PC has do to the lack of large multiplayer ability on the consoles, which is now a thing of the past. I'm currently building a Strategy game and my next game will be RP/adventure game both originally target solely at the PC, but now I have to consider the console market if I want to be successful in this industry. So what do people see as the main barriers between PC and Console games? Control is the obvious one since the PC can allow much more elborate controls which are often needed in strategy games. But what other aspects of a PC game, seperate it from its console counter parts? When you think console game do you have a much diffrent vision in mind then when you think PC game? What is the seperation between them that you see?

I think the major difference between getting a consumer to buy a PC game and a console game is accessibility. With a console I just stick the disc in and I'm ready to go. I know for sure that the game is going to start up and that I have the right controller to play the game. On the PC platform you're hoping that your current hardware configuration is supported and that the performance will be alright. Then I still have to install the game and load it up. This all sounds fairly straight forward and simple to us but to Sally Homemaker who barely knows how to read email it's a daunting task. What is she going to buy for her kids? Something that she knows will just work or something that her kids might start asking for her help on setting up?

This difference between the PC and console world is the responsibility of the platform owners to change. Some Microsoft has to step up with Windows gaming and make it just as easy as a console. Imagine a PC game world where I just buy the game and plunk it in the DVD drive and it plays. If consoles can do it without an install why can't PCs? That is what will bring PC gaming back to the forefront or at least on even footing with consoles.

How about we start creating Linux live CDs -- equiped with the bare necesities for games -- for all our games, that boots directly into the game, and is equiped to improvise for any variance in hardware capability.

Ok, maybe not...

But I agree that the main difference is that PCs are each so different in hardware that it's impossible to tell if a game is going to work the way it's suppose to, or even at all.

There is a distro that aims to do something like that. The point is, you turn on the computer, insert the CD and all u do is to go playing. To exit the game means to turn off the computer.

Well, I for one refuse to buy PC games anymore. I refuse to spend hundreds of dollars year after year to keep getting new components to play games that are lucky to work out of the box. The PC game industry is so quick to throw out the last generation of hardware, and then focus exclusively on the new stuff.

It sucks to buy a pc game and find out it doesn't want to work because you have a cd-rw drive and software to use it. Or the requirements don't reflect anything close to what is actually needed to run something. That's if it even runs at all. Then you have to hope the company patches it, and wait months while your CD collects dust.

Also, the PC games are not really that good. The market is saturated with games in the same 5 genres that mostly look and play alike. With my console, I go grab a cheap game, I bring it home and I play it. It will work out of the box, and it will always work.

[sad]This is not meant to start a flame war, I know most of you guys like your PC games. Just stating why I don't buy them, and I can't be the only one who feels this way.

I agree with Vampyre_Dark: The number one barrier to PCs is publishers that require 'anti-consumer measures' on any game they publish in order to encourage piracy by requiring cracks. While I don't agree with it, it isn't hard to understand why many people would rather pirate a game and be able to play it (with cracks and such) than buy it only to find that the cd is at best a drink coaster (due to 'copy protection' that equates to checking if they have any other software installed).

Really, the problem is buggy software in general. Things like valve's steam make me not want to play the original Half-Life I paid for because it's such a hastle to get online with it, where before I could just start up a light-weight server browser and automatically join my friends. The fact that other companies are following their lead scares me some.

Then there is also inefficient software, such that pre-Quake 1 features end up requiring a QuantumForce™ 17 graphics card that doesn't come out for 50 years with an engine so scalable that you can run it on the yet-to-be-released QuantumForce™ 16 at 15 FPS on minimum settings or a released graphics card as a slide show screen saver.

In other words, the barier to PCs is comprised of the companies that make PC software.

I have to agree with everyones answers thus far the lack out of the box playability and the fact the PC have inconsist hardware and games lacking support for that has effectivly doomed the PC Game industry. I remember really looking forward to player Knights of the Old republic two. So I borrowed it off a friend to give it quick test drive on my laptop having enjoyed the orginal one and after spending half an hour installing it I had to configure the game for my PC. Then when that was done I loaded it up created a character and it crashed. I tried a half dozen more times unistalled and reinstalled the game and still it crashed. I checked the website even emailed tech support and after 3 days of waiting I finally heard back with a message saying that they didn't support my 3d graphics card and had no plans in future to support. So that was that all that trouble and they effectivly told me that if I wanted to play there game I would have to buy a new computer. I think that is one of major reasons for the Console take over of the video game market. Constant hardware means that you never have to worry that PS1 or PS2 game you just bought will work on your PS2 since it always will. Include that in with the longer lifespan of the console systems compared to PC, since you can get at least 3-5 years of new releases on your console system where as you are lucky if your three year old PC is an effective paper wait went it comes time to purchase a new game.

pc games will always be around.
There will always be developers who want the absolute maximum experience possible and that requires a pc. Consoles just dont cut it. Just try and port battlefield to a console, youll loose all the gameplay due to low resolution and the controllers.

a radeon 8500 will run all of todays games and it will look just as good as a console and run good enough. If you are an online fan all you need is ut2004 and battlefield, your set for the rest of time because of new mods/maps.

For me, the pc is cheaper over a long period of time.

Surround sound is an absolute must. A hard core experience.

Updating your hardware is bloody fun.

Part of the problem is the industry itself. I know, it's not a new argument, but with only a few big publishers dominating the market, there's not much room for anything new. The way it works now is that a studio makes a game, then releases it for everything. When all the games are the same, there's no reason to use a PC over anything else.

What we really need is a re-vitallized indie-developer market. This will address several issues:
-re-introduce creativity to market
-Shift focus back onto the PC market (As an indie, it's fairly difficult/costly to develope for console, where as PC is free... you know what I mean)
-Provide entertainment without the need for the latest and greatest hardware (If I write a game, I'm gonna do it to run with what hardware I have, even if it is only a g-force 2)

Just my $0.023 CND

I'd have to agree with everyone above that the hardware compatibility is a big thing, so I won't say much about that, I think you've all covered it nicely.

On the topic of controllers however, you mentioned that PC can allow more elaborate controls. On this point, I'd tend to slightly disagree, although it depends how they're used. Certainly, the PC offers more controls, as you can use all the keys on the keyboard, and potentially even give them multiple functions depending on context, etc. Console controls typically have less buttons on them, but they do have a fair amount, and are designed so that all (or most) of the buttons available can be used simultaneously.

Looking at some of the latest console controllers, a typical configuration will have:
-From 1 to 4 'trigger' style buttons.
-1 or 2 analogue thumbsticks (commonly with a button function as well).
-A D-Pad control (effectively 4 buttons).
-4 to 6 additional buttons.
-1 or more 'function' buttons (such as Power, Start, Back, etc.)
-In addition they will often have some kind of force feedback/rumblepack, etc.
For reference if needed, see:
- Dual Shock (PS1/2)
- XBox Controller S
- N64 Controller (3rd party in this case)

As you can see, while there are less controls over all, those available are somewhat more suited to gaming that the keyboard/mouse combination used by the majority of PC users. In addition, the controls on consoles are increasingly analogue, giving them a specific advantage over the keyboard. While similar controls are available for PC, they are an added item, rather than simply coming as part of the package. In some cases (espcially where text input is required in any large way, or there are a lot of functions to control, the keyboard/mouse combination is very good, but I think in many situations the console controls can be considered more intricate; they allow potentially complex combinations of inputs (2 thumbsticks plus trigger presses simultaneously for example) to be carried out in a more elegant way.

I think that in additon to hardware issues mentioned above, controllers probably play a part in consoles having an edge on PC as a gaming platform.