Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
Kimberley Ellis
09 Mar, 2008

Valve explains why PC gaming is here to stay

PC News | Steam may be the key to gaming's future on the PC.
In a recent interview with Gamasutra, Valve's Vice President of Marketing, Doug Lombardi and Business Development Director, Jason Holtman have talked about the future of PC gaming in an effort to dispel the rumours that the platform is on its last legs.

Lombardi hits back at the 'PC is dead' rhetoric by citing the recent successes of Valve's Steam platform, stating that Steam alone has seen growth of 150% year over year, not to mention the impressive and ever-increasing 15 million user plus install base. While those numbers look quite good, Lombardi was adamant that install base is not the best way to measure the success of the industry. Install base is only half the battle, "we continue to announce more titles coming day and date now, which is one of the last pieces of metrics we're using for judging the success and strength of the platform."

So with Steam doing a roaring trade on its own, how is it that the PC gaming scene is seen to be in such a downward spiral? Lombardi acknowledges that while the PC is taking a hammering in the retail store sector, inaccuracies in the sales numbers is also doing its part in the scare mongering. In particular he points the finger at NPD's market research, adamantly stating, "that totally ignores the money changing hands, and properties like World of Warcraft with their monthly subscriptions. That totally ignores Steam sales, and any other MMOs and online distribution systems and a host of others... it also ignores things like PopCap games. Peggle's not in that number…If you took Steam, Peggle, PopCap, WoW and mixed it with NPD numbers, the world looks a lot different. All of a sudden, it looks like PC's probably the biggest one, and year over year, the fastest-growing."

Jason Holtman, also notes that Steam distributes worldwide, and the NPD research only focused on sales figures in North America. Holtman states "our view of where PC gaming is across the world is very different than someone looking at North America's numbers."

Lombardi was very optimistic on his take of the state of the industry, "I can remember this story coming around in the mid '90s... and then 3D accelerator came out, and Carmack released that patch for GL Quake, and everybody shut up, because all of a sudden PlayStation looked like crap. There's a big shift about to come in the post-GPU space... all of a sudden PC will leapfrog what's going on on the consoles, in many other ways besides graphics."

Lombardi cites the astronomical cost of producing consoles as well as their tentative steps into the downloadable content arena as deterrents for console gaming. He notes that the PC is the big winner in the connectivity stakes because "the console guys are still trying to figure out how to release DLC, and are still not selling full new games [over digital networks]. I think at the end of the day there's going to be a continued group of people -- us, Blizzard, Epic -- committed to making great apps for PC."

On the business end, Holtman had a few things to say about new business models cropping up in the market. In particular he spoke at length about the play for free model that games like Battlefield Heroes is setting out to champion in the Western world.

The play for free model has already seen much success in territories like Asia - where game piracy is a rampant epidemic. The model has seen gamers quite happy to pay for micro-transactions to get their hands on the best in-game kit for a very small fee. He states that Valve is very aware of the business that the model is making and states that something like that model could be on the cards for Valve in the near future. "It's something we've always approached... you're going to see it slowly roll out, and we'll see how people react."

It seems that Valve's current partnership with Nexon in Asian territories such as China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan with Counter-Strike Online could prove to be a prudent means to gauge the waters of the micro-transaction model before a possible roll out across the entire Steam platform. Lombardi explains, "we feel that's a great place for us to learn, and Nexon is a company that has done it before, and so they're a good partner... it's in beta now, and over the years we'll take the learning from that and also work with other partners who want to bring games like that to North America via Steam."

Related Content

Left 4 Dead delayed
04 Aug, 2007 Put away your shotgun.
THQ joins Steam
18 Jul, 2007 10% discount off for a limited time.
Psychonauts now available on Steam
12 Oct, 2006 Tim Schafer's game gets all Steamy.
20 Comments
4 years ago
""the console guys are still trying to figure out how to release DLC, and are still not selling full new games [over digital networks]."

Warhawk? SOCOM? Oblivion: Shivering Isles? The multitide of original Xbox and PSX games available for download? I respect Valve, but full game downloads on consoles is alive and kicking.
4 years ago
Plus, not everyone has the connection to download full 10-20 gig games.
4 years ago
sounds like this guy didn't do his homework lol
4 years ago
So... If PC gaming is here to stay, shouldn't Value be supporting all of the PC platforms icon_rolleyes.gif

Action first, mouthing off later please.
4 years ago
Jason Holtman wrote
Jason Holtman, also notes that Steam distributes worldwide, and the NPD research only focused on sales figures in North America. Holtman states "our view of where PC gaming is across the world is very different than someone looking at North America's numbers."
To put it better:

Jason Holtman wrote
*puts fingers in ears* la la la la la
4 years ago
Well, the interesting thing in the article was that all the doomsday statistics regarding PC gaming ignored Steam and MMO's. That certainly gives me some hope that PC gaming ain't over yet.

Looking at the next generation is especially interesting, when you consider the effect fusion/larrabee will have. Once CPU's and GPU's are integrated, a PC starts to look more like a console that comes with a few different SKU's.

What I think we'll see is a merging of the two platforms, with computers becoming more streamlined hardware-wise (ie fewer hardware congurations to deal with), while consoles will become more adept at entertainment tasks, and will gain some PC gaming functionality, such as keyboard/mouse use for more games, or other such control schemes.
4 years ago
You guys all seem to be so quick to pronounce the death of PC gaming.

Its hardly over. There is new tech consantly coming out, as well as games.
Steam is doing a great job to keep PC gaming alive and well, and the fact that subscriptions and online purchases are not being included into sales charts IS an important difference.

Kurupt wrote
Plus, not everyone has the connection to download full 10-20 gig games.
Thats why the australian government needs to get off its ass and get us faster download speeds with no limits.
4 years ago
Aftershock wrote
Its hardly over. There is new tech consantly coming out, as well as games.
Steam is doing a great job to keep PC gaming alive and well, and the fact that subscriptions and online purchases are not being included into sales charts IS an important difference.
That's a double edged sword though, one key part of consoles is the stability that it brings so you get a complete box, the key draw-card with the PC is that the consumer can enhance their playing by changing a single or multiple components. The cost of this however is that as soon as you get a gaming worthy PC it's made redundant within months to enjoy it at it's maximum while console gamers are plugging away.

As much as I do adore PC gaming over console gaming because of the ease of commands, the constant need to upgrade to match performance doesn't reflect the true value of the game in most cases, as in some cases you are in effect paying $200+ for a single game while console owners are simply paying the RRP.
4 years ago
^Yes, but you can do far more with a PC. I can't speak for others, but for myself I can say the only difference PC gaming needs made to my rig was my decision of video cards. Considering that a 8800GT will run anything these days and look stunning, with good FPS, that's $300 to upgrade your PC to run all the latest games (you can probably get by with a 3870 for $250 as well). Whereas the xbox 360, for example, costs $500+ for the pro, plus more for subscription to live, and extra controllers, rechargable batteries, etc.

I maintain that consoles and PCs cater to different niches atm, so rather than competing, they should be working together to make games more accessable, and more importantly, more meaningful, to the public.
4 years ago
How about stop buying the latest and greatest and perhaps developers will write games with sane system requirements. The ATi Mobility Radeon 2600 XT plays the majority of recent games smoothly on a 1680x1050 screen, so you don't need your 8800 GTs and 3870s icon_wink.gif

So long as you keep following that path you'll always have fork out the extra cash to keep up. It's a cycle only you can break, sure some developers are going to get bitten if everyone does this, but it's their own fault really. Perhaps if this cycle breaks we'll actually get some efficient GPUs as opposed to push as many pixels and screw everything else attitude that we're getting at the moment.
4 years ago
Steam is awesome.

Valve is awesome.

PC gaming is awesome.
4 years ago
mipac wrote
""the console guys are still trying to figure out how to release DLC, and are still not selling full new games [over digital networks]."

Warhawk? SOCOM? Oblivion: Shivering Isles? The multitide of original Xbox and PSX games available for download? I respect Valve, but full game downloads on consoles is alive and kicking.
"the console guys are still trying to figure out how to release DLC, and are still not selling full new games [over digital networks]."

That's the key point that you are missing.

Will big releases like GTA4 be available for full download on console upon release? no. Metal Gear Solid 4? no. Doug Lombardi's point is that until we see the day that blockbuster releases are distributed digitally on console, Steam and the PC clearly have the edge over consoles [in respect to digital distribution].
4 years ago
Kimberley Ellis wrote
"the console guys are still trying to figure out how to release DLC, and are still not selling full new games [over digital networks]."

That's the key point that you are missing.

Will big releases like GTA4 be available for full download on console upon release? no. Metal Gear Solid 4? no. Doug Lombardi's point is that until we see the day that blockbuster releases are distributed digitally on console, Steam and the PC clearly have the edge over consoles [in respect to digital distribution].
Sorry, I don't think this answers mipac's issue. Warhawk, a long awaited brand new PS3 game, was released on the PSN half-price, a week earlier than retail. Tekken 5: DR, while essentially a port, is another full game on the PSN, this time even only available via download. I don't think the popularity of the title really affects whether or not the medium in general is as used on consoles.

It may not be particularly frequent, but Sony at least really aren't ignorant of the benefits of digital distribution, and although Valve are steaming ahead (please shoot me now) with it, they're really not in a position to speak of themselves as, or to be looked upon as, the only company making an effort.
4 years ago
I just recently downloaded steam and it used up a lot of resource making audiosurf laggy for a few minute. It didn't lag with the non-steam demo, so don't blame my lappy icon_razz.gif

I reckon as long as computers are going to be around, there will be gaming. However, I do feel behind in the PC gaming world just because of my lappy now not able to play current games (which about 2 years ago it could play the game it was released during that time). This is why I turn to consoles gaming because I can't afford to upgrade (in my case, get a new lappy - got space limitation at home)
4 years ago
Lord Haart wrote
^Yes, but you can do far more with a PC. I can't speak for others, but for myself I can say the only difference PC gaming needs made to my rig was my decision of video cards. Considering that a 8800GT will run anything these days and look stunning, with good FPS, that's $300 to upgrade your PC to run all the latest games (you can probably get by with a 3870 for $250 as well). Whereas the xbox 360, for example, costs $500+ for the pro, plus more for subscription to live, and extra controllers, rechargable batteries, etc.

I maintain that consoles and PCs cater to different niches atm, so rather than competing, they should be working together to make games more accessable, and more importantly, more meaningful, to the public.
That's assuming certain standards by way of pricing, dismissing those who might not have anything but an AGP port and thus would need a mobo with their GPU change and who then might need more HDD space or RAM (albeit RAM is cheap) you can't argue that laying games would simply require a GPU change and that's it as that's an entirely assumptive response that everyone who PC games keeps up to at least minimum standards when many don't.

As Niknack pointed out, some developers simply have insane requirements to run their games when it's really unnecessary to have such high requirements, it's a problem with PC gaming that isn't then translated to console gaming. And really should those of us only playing games at 1024 or 1280 have to put up with the insane requirements because the small hardcore crowd want to go 1680 with load times quick enough that you can't even dig out your undies from sitting down as much, or should we be able to simply play the game to enjoy it? Really I think PC developers don't give a toss about the larger crowd of casual PC gamers who simply play the games with the newer releases, I mean not everyone is going to be getting quad core and can set up sli or even have a damned physics card to run some of them even averagely.

That was my point, that in order to play the games at a level that console gamers get out of the box one might then need to spend like $600+ overhauling parts of their system and then constantly updating because at the rate of the technology growth the developers would quickly leave those who don't behind.
4 years ago
Most of the games with horrendous requirements are just the console ports anyway. See Assassins Creed for example.
4 years ago
Fly wrote
Lord Haart wrote
^Yes, but you can do far more with a PC. I can't speak for others, but for myself I can say the only difference PC gaming needs made to my rig was my decision of video cards. Considering that a 8800GT will run anything these days and look stunning, with good FPS, that's $300 to upgrade your PC to run all the latest games (you can probably get by with a 3870 for $250 as well). Whereas the xbox 360, for example, costs $500+ for the pro, plus more for subscription to live, and extra controllers, rechargable batteries, etc.

I maintain that consoles and PCs cater to different niches atm, so rather than competing, they should be working together to make games more accessable, and more importantly, more meaningful, to the public.
That's assuming certain standards by way of pricing, dismissing those who might not have anything but an AGP port and thus would need a mobo with their GPU change and who then might need more HDD space or RAM (albeit RAM is cheap) you can't argue that laying games would simply require a GPU change and that's it as that's an entirely assumptive response that everyone who PC games keeps up to at least minimum standards when many don't.

As Niknack pointed out, some developers simply have insane requirements to run their games when it's really unnecessary to have such high requirements, it's a problem with PC gaming that isn't then translated to console gaming. And really should those of us only playing games at 1024 or 1280 have to put up with the insane requirements because the small hardcore crowd want to go 1680 with load times quick enough that you can't even dig out your undies from sitting down as much, or should we be able to simply play the game to enjoy it? Really I think PC developers don't give a toss about the larger crowd of casual PC gamers who simply play the games with the newer releases, I mean not everyone is going to be getting quad core and can set up sli or even have a damned physics card to run some of them even averagely.

That was my point, that in order to play the games at a level that console gamers get out of the box one might then need to spend like $600+ overhauling parts of their system and then constantly updating because at the rate of the technology growth the developers would quickly leave those who don't behind.
But, when you build a new computer, a smart person will do it with upgradability in mind.
And most technology is not obsolete in a few months, just superseded.

True, like Nikack said, many games come with ridiculous system requirements, like assassins creed. But a great many games run on very flexible engines, (e.g source, unreal) and so can run well on lower systems. For example, I can run HL2: Ep2 on my 7600GS at 1024 just fine, with almost no lag.
4 years ago
Aftershock wrote
But, when you build a new computer, a smart person will do it with upgradability in mind.
And most technology is not obsolete in a few months, just superseded.

True, like Nikack said, many games come with ridiculous system requirements, like assassins creed. But a great many games run on very flexible engines, (e.g source, unreal) and so can run well on lower systems. For example, I can run HL2: Ep2 on my 7600GS at 1024 just fine, with almost no lag.
Not everyone is computer savvy, what about mum and dad who buy Dells and such? They can hardly use a computer properly let alone upgrade them.

Newer games should be able to run smoothly at low settings on integrated graphics (or at least within Virtual Machines), which not many games can do. Also any Source Engine based game can be excluded from that list as most of the rendering on the CPU.
4 years ago
I interpreted nikacks post as more having a go at the card manufacturers not the game developers, I think both a slightly responsible. Although the latter probably not so much, maybe not at all for all I know.
So are the hardware developers to blame for anything?
4 years ago
I'm not sure about you guys but when I get a gaming console/pc, I really like it to last for over 5 years and for it to play any titles that is released for it. Money is very tight for me and for me it is cheaper to get a console as a gaming device in the long run.

Not everyone has the money to constantly upgrade their computer to be able to play the latest game with great settings. I personally believed that the target audience are partly to blame because there is always a drive for the game developers/hardware developers to improve.

To show that there is something for them to sell to gamers to get money, obviously you need to do something new or no one will buy it; as long as people are willing to purchase the new product and people invest in the computer they will keep on releasing new and better stuff.
Add Comment
Like this news?
Share it with this tiny url: http://palg.nu/3g9

N4G : News for Gamers         Twitter This!

Digg!     Stumble This!

| More
Currently Popular on PALGN
Australian Gaming Bargains - 08/12/11
'Tis the season to be bargaining.
R18+ Legislation
R18+ Legislation
Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations Preview
Hands on time with the game. Chat time with the CEO of CyberConnect 2.
PALGN's Most Anticipated Games of 2007
24 titles to keep an eye on during 2007.
PALGN's Most Anticipated Games of 2008
And you thought 2007 was populated.