IGN - The Future of PC Gaming
 

Not specifically RPG related but IGN talks to a number of developers about The Future of PC Gaming. The rise of F2P, moving to the living room, the marginalisation of boxed games, crowdfunding, technology leadership, community building, indies and more are canvassed:
More information.

I wonder if there's a correlation b/w the number of these sorts of articles and the age of console technology? New consoles = "wow consoles are so awesome, PC gaming is dead!". Old consoles = "wow PC's are so awesome, PC gaming is alive and well!".

PC hardware has come along way since the current crop of consoles was released though; I put together a PC for my brother the other week and it was so easy - like fancy lego! It was cheap, and from a power perspective it should last him just about forever (he doesn't play games).

PC Gaming is dead! PC Gaming is alive! It's a merry-go-round that's been spinning for 3 decades now.

One useful thing in that article is the gameplay video for TES Online. I never saw it before and I have to say that it has me interested. I'll have to wait and see if it won't devolve into an endless loot grind like every other MMO but that video shows promise.

I think Indie gaming becomes more mainstream gaming.

The Publishers are going to pay their price for their risk-aversity.

But the gamers are also pying a price : Those who always wanted graphics over everything else - including story - and those who demanded high-costgrapics (and possibly full voiceover, too), are now paying the price for demanding/driing "the inditry" into cost regions no-one can bear anymore.

nd people just don't want all o that stuff. The casual gamer doesn't need or wat top-notch graphics. He or she wants top-notch gameplay !

I think that this illustrates "gaming industry vs. casual gamers" very good :

Provocating said, the "industry" listened to the "hardcore gamer" too much, and perhaps now the casual gamers are turning towards Indies instead, I guess.

That reflects poor through KS projects.

Publishers know their customers and their customers claim to want innovative things but prefer to play the same old games.

Gamers prefer to pretend than being. And the publishers satisfy their demand.

I don't think publishers have any new or different challenges in the near term. I think they can easily co-exist with indie developers and crowd-funding. Most mainstream games can be distilled down to this: FPS-Insert_A_Number_And_An_Art_Direction_And_Weapon_Se t.

I see no change in this in the near term because most mainstream games continue to be FPS 'action' and 'shooters' with better graphics and physics (and every once in a while, some semblence of improved or innovative gameplay though rare).

Mainstream gamers can't seem to get enough of this and I don't see this changing anytime soon.

^ This [emphasis mine]

Boxed = getting marginal?

Laughing my a$$ off. Read the The Witcher 2 sales figures and do the maths.

Remember: A lie does not become a truth by repeating it constantly.

No, you're over-generalizing. Some gamers like innovative things, and they are often the ones who make most of the noise. The people who are satisfied with what they are getting have less motivation to complain.

Again I wonder how many actually ask for these innovative things? Even the most non-mainstream gamers seem to mostly keep asking for sequels, remakes and 'old school' approaches.

People that are not satisfied with what they are getting tend to believe that the solution is to restore what was lost instead of pursuing something new. Innovation has a great chance of leading to failure and, even though plenty of people will recognize and even praise it when they see it, they will not accept it as enough of an advantage on its own.

By the way, I claim to like innovation and, because of that, I am satisfied with what I'm getting. The whole point to request things not to be done in a familiar way even though that means that they will reject what is proven to work and you know you like.

it's interesting. I want innovation but not so much that it changes the game. For example, king's bounty I wouldn't mind if they changed it in the next iteration, with different factions, different units (entirely different, not just a few new ones), different spells, even different classes. I would not want them changing the gameplay style, it should still be real-time outdoors travel with turn based combat. It could change the art style, music and story and it would still be King's Bounty, but not change combat to a system like Disciples or to make it twitch based, that would make it a different game.

No.
Gamers and some gamers, it means the same. I did not write The gamers which would induce the overgeneralization you are trying for.

There is little ground to claim that gamers who are often the most vocal, would like innovative things.
Vocal gamers also comprise of hard core fans who want to resist any kind of change.
Vocal gamers also comprise of competitive players who reject any innovation as it would waste the command they acquired over the current set of rules, which matters so much in a competitive approach.
And finally vocal gamers also comprise of gamers who perceive themselves as wishing for innovation when they want more of the same.

Best measure is the buck and as KS showed: the buck goes much easilier to games that go for the same.

There is zip innovation in most of the list (if not all)

Rotating around options (green hat, blue shirt; blue hat, green shirt) is not innovation. That is redressing the same old in diffferent ways.

Some comments are very off in the list of articles.

This one (and its context)
This guy puts on the wrong shoes. He is on the selling side, not the buying side.
Getting paid to let people see the content of a game is not an issue. On the very contrary.

One comment to follow
Not sure this guy earned a badge of smartness thanks to comments like that but it will shape the future of gaming.

Production costs are going to rise while the customer basis is stalling or increasing at a slower rate.

One can expect even more of the same old as dropping out of the race for better graphics is out of the question and that limitations of costs must come from somewhere else. So it has to come from gameplay.
It is likely that publishers are going to lend ears to gamers reclaiming a return to the past as this will allow them to diminish costs of production.

Perhaps then you don't speak English as a native tongue? In any event, you didn't communicate your meaning properly.

"Some gamers" do not lead to overgeneralization?

If so, gamers cant lead to overgeneralization because gamers and some gamers mean the same.

Take your pick here.

then I guess I don't like innovation :)
My problem is that when I like the game, I like *the game*, as it is. Heroes of Might and Magic 1-6 (except for the aberration that was 4) has been the same *game* over the years. Better graphics, sounds, interface, etc. But the game mechanics haven't changed much… and that is a great thing.