PC Gaming Alliance Formed

[Thrashdragon]

From http://www.gamespot.com/news/6186307.html

GDC '08: PC Gaming Alliance founded
Activision, AMD, Dell, Intel, Microsoft, and Nvidia co-found nonprofit dedicated to "advancing the PC as a worldwide gaming platform."

By Tor Thorsen, GameSpot
Posted Feb 19, 2008 10:12 pm PT
SAN FRANCISCO--With consoles now increasingly intruding on such hallowed ground as the real-time strategy genre, many PC gamers have adopted something of a siege mentality. This defensive attitude is also apparently afflicting a consortium of hardware manufacturers and software publishers, who today announced the formation of the PC Gaming Alliance.

The first body ever formed solely to promote the PC gaming industry, the PCGA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to "driving coordinated marketing and promotion of PC gaming...and creating forums for member companies to cooperate on solutions to challenges facing the PC gaming industry, such as hardware requirements and anti-piracy."

Said member companies include PC hardware manufacturers Acer Inc./Gateway Inc., Dell/Alienware, Intel Corp, and AMD. AMD also owns ATI, a leading manufacturer of PC graphics cards, whose chief rival, Nvidia, is also on the PCGA board along with PC game peripheral Razer USA. Rounding out the list are game developer Epic Games and the biggest third-party publisher on the planet, Activision.

Ironically, the maker of one of the consoles being blamed for cutting into the PC's market share is also on the PCGA's board. After spending billions on launching and promoting the Xbox 360, Microsoft has joined the board as part of its re-invigorated PC gaming initiative, Games for Windows.

The formation of the PCGA is drawing praise from analysts covering the PC gaming market, which took in $911 million at US retailers last year--a decline of six percent. "This collaboration will provide developers and publishers with a champion for consistent demographics, hardware adoption, and revenue measurement and reporting," DFC Intelligence David Cole said in a statement. "An authoritative source of information on the PC as a gaming platform will serve as an invaluable catalyst for growing the market and improving the consumers' PC gaming experience."

The announcement of the PCGA's formation was timed to coincide with the ongoing Game Developers Conference, where many of its member companies are touting their wares. The nonprofit also launched its official Web site, www.pcgamingalliance.org.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with, or if they just spend all their time fighting with each other. At least they've finally realized that PC gaming is in trouble and they need to do something.

[-IRC-MIKE]

HOOOAH!

It's about friggin time. Everyone I know that used to play Xbox and Playstation have gotten into pc gaming and before, they were bound to the controls of either, but after gaming on a pc at my expense for a while, they have learned that controlling a game with a keyboard is much more satisfying, even though it can be complicated. They also have realized that there are much more options when it comes to gaming with a PC. About 95% of the friends that I have let play online games have spoken that they enjoyed PC gaming much more than from a console.

This is something that should have been done long ago. The PC is always going to be a dominant tool for every application, and if this takes off like I expect, console gaming will be left behind and/or geared more toward children's games and learning. I think they should make the "M" rated games for PC and leave the other - lesser rated games for the kiddie console.

I can play just about every game on my PC that was invented for Atari, nintendo, xbox, ps, and everything in between that didn't take off. The only gaming console that you don't have the controls for is the wii, which should be developed for the PC any time now.

That's Just my 2cents

~~mike~~

[Zantheus]

+1 Mike

Hopefully they will spend the time and work together to create the ultimate experiences for us gamers. Not only will it keep PC gaming alive but by working together I think they will find the potential to make more $$ then by do9in everythin on their own

[Hammy]

I see the programmer sweatshops getting slapped around hard.

In the Valley (silicon valley that is) they pretty much ruin the quality of games by pushing forwad deadlines to meet sagging revenue.

If the Executives would just stop buying crap garage dev companies, and focus more on their business, they wouldnt run into the programming division shouting "deadline is up 6 months " every few months in order to cover their butts.

I'm dead serious. The revenue drops out after they make a few shoddy aquisitions, and oh by the way- comp package growths for execs impact this as well, then they penalize the creative properties by demanding content be cut and deadlines be pushed up.

I see this alliance as a major improvement to the future of gaming fromt he standpoint that Executives and the companies they serve will no longer be able to blame the architecture and the hardware for the problems their production line of business creates.

[ThisElfRocksHard]

First order of business: design a new game, one where the player attempts to shoot other players in a massively-multiplayer environment. Next: create some sort of role-playing game, where you have to kill things to get more powerful so you can kill more things and get more powerful so you can kill more things and get more powerful. Then, some sort of sports game.

Hey guys, instead of making the same 3 games and wondering why your revenues are down 6%, have you kicked around the idea of making something...new? Gamble on innovation like you did on the nineties, and it just might pay off.

[Trooper110]

Well, I'll cross my fingers and hope for something good to come of this, about the most I expect though.

[Devilguns]

Hey guys, instead of making the same 3 games and wondering why your revenues are down 6%, have you kicked around the idea of making something...new? Gamble on innovation like you did on the nineties, and it just might pay off.

Yeah this is pretty much it in a nutshell. I think a lot of these companies rely too much on a games online playability for their success. The only problem is they are using the same model thats been around over a decade. COD4 is an awesome game but after four months I'm board as hell with it.

[killa_zn]

Well, I'll cross my fingers and hope for something good to come of this, about the most I expect though.

yeah, i gotta think positive about this..

like an online virtual reality video game in a massive world

[Hammy]

Hey guys, instead of making the same 3 games and wondering why your revenues are down 6%, have you kicked around the idea of making something...new? Gamble on innovation like you did on the nineties, and it just might pay off.

Yeah this is pretty much it in a nutshell. I think a lot of these companies rely too much on a games online playability for their success. The only problem is they are using the same model thats been around over a decade. COD4 is an awesome game but after four months I'm board as hell with it.

Online success is only valuable if there is a subscription fee attached to it. From sales revenue by marketing model, the value of a COD4 is to perpetuate the brand of that line of business.

That is completely different than a WoW, which has a perpetuated revenue model with fees that are gathered from each user on a monthly basis. Software as a Service or OnDemand licensing models like this are what companies like mine, Oracle, and Salesforce.com use to stabilize their revenue stream in an otherwise durable good software environment.

Spelling out for you, you buy a game from Activision. Thats the end of it in most cases. Single transaction every 2-3 months.

You buy a WoW, you pay your fees 1 year or 2 years in advance if you think you are going to be an addict, or you go and buy a 1 month trial, then buy the yearly (again to save yourself cash). With exception to that first trial period( where they give you noob stuff, put you in a nice happy environment, etc.) they have a secure revenue model.

Blizzard is a much more stable company than Activision from the standpoint of revenue streams.

If you understand what I am trying to say, then you will realize that if you do not have a stable MMORPG game, then you will do stupid stuff like I stated in my first post as well as what our friend here shared in the quote I included.

The best thing anyone could do for gaming is to end this guerilla marketing in our industry and create a development studio that wont close after two releases, or sell the rights to the technology and vaporize their shop.

There are soooo many companies that start up with 8 known game designers, work togeather for 24 months creating the most kick butt games in a generation, and then sell-out to companies like Vivendi, EA, Activision, and etc.

Within days, the lease on those locations are terminated, the employees let go, and the brand ceases to exist on future boxes.

Bungie is an exception to this rule, but almost became that victim. I remember when their product was coming to PC, before MS jumped in, and then we got to wait two years for the first Halo thanks to several screw ups and delays by Microsoft.

I just hope that this doesnt become what one of my buddies at EA is saying, which is the equivelent of OPEC in the gaming industry.

[Devilguns]

Online success is only valuable if there is a subscription fee attached to it. From sales revenue by marketing model, the value of a COD4 is to perpetuate the brand of that line of business.

I'm saying game companies aren't putting their heart and soul into it. COD4, single player finished in under 6 hours. Unreal Tournament 3 Single player sucked hard. Battlefield 2 no real single player.

There was a time when a game became it's own entity. A lot of titles seem so cookie cutter to me and lifeless now. I used to get excited about the characters now I could care less If I'm a US Marine or an Arab soldier from some made up middle eastern coalition. Might as well have Burger king versus McDonalds employees for all I care.

Now a days they push a title out. You don't really get any kind of content other than pretty scenery and if your lucky a few hours of single player campaign with lack luster cut scenes. The game companies rely on us to provide the experience and what tools do they give us to do it? Deathmatch and domination type play, yawn.