I think if you have to ask that question, you would not understand the answer.

I'll try to explain. What I write here is not something that I necessarily agree with, like I said it's just an explanation.

• Console gamers are perceived as shallower gamers - they play games for a shorter amount of time, and are used to shooters, or other fast-paced, quick gratification games. Many are also casual gamers, who don't have the time or money to sink into a good PC, so they spend a little bit of cash for an Xbox and off they go. PC gamers resent that the target audience of their beloved franchises is shifting to these 'lesser' gamers and consequently being oriented more and more to meet the demands and needs of console players over the bread and butter PC gamer community that gave Elder Scrolls its start, and kept it alive.
  
• The reason that the target audience is shifting is, in part, because console gaming is such a large market, compared to the PC market. Console gaming is relatively affordable affordable - you put down a couple hundred bucks for an Xbox or PS3, buy a 60 dollar game, and you go. Many people do not have the money, or expertise to buy/build a high end computer capable of running games on settings comparable to their console. The average PC gamer would have to spend easily over a thousand dollars to play Skyrim, whereas a console gamer could play it for a quarter of that, or less. Consequently, there's more console gamers than PC gamers and since everyone buys the game at the same price, it means there theoretically there's a larger amount of money to be had in the console market. Developers go where the money is.
  
• Since this new target market is made up of casual gamers, who for whatever reason seek quick gratification before moving on to their next opiate, the games are being 'simplified'. They lose some of the RPG elements to adapt a more hack-and-slash, forgiving, anyone-can-play sort of game that appeals to a broader fanbase. A game that anyone can just pick up and enjoy, sacrificing storyline and depth to make the game easier to understand and play. Those of us who loved the way Morrowind was, and would change or improve only superficial things aside from of course graphics, are resentful. Inevitably, some features and good things have been lost along the way.
  
• Consoles also slow down the progression of computer games. If Skyrim was a PC-only game, there is an argument that the graphics could've been even better, and the game could've had even more stuff. The problem is, that if console gamers are a big part of your target audience, you're essentially making your game for hardware that is now, I think, 5 or 6 years old. So while the gameplay is being watered down by the console gamer's themselves, the visual quality and amount of content is being watered down by the machines console gamers use. Keep in mind that Oblivion and Skyrim basically have to run on the same machine, despite being years apart. I know the PC I had 5 years ago wouldn't have been able to run Skyrim. PC gamers have improved their gear, console gamers haven't, though of course that's the fault of Sony and Microsoft for not having come out with next generation consoles yet, which are overdue and not the fault of console gamers themselves.

Edit: I'd like to add that I don't share the general disdain towards console gamers that some of my Morrowind-loving colleagues might, except for on the last point about console hardware vs. computer hardware but that ire I direct towards the companies and not the gamers themselves. In part this is because I myself got my start on Morrowind on the Xbox, and only recently purchased it for PC in part to support Bethesda when I heard Skyrim was in development, and in part to re-enjoy the old times and try out the mods I'd heard so much about.

That said, console gamers are awfully disrespectful to the 'old guard' I find, and since we're on the 'losing side' of struggle, you could at least be more understanding of our concerns, which I think we all know deep down will never be addressed or properly remedied. The slippery slope of the TES series is a pandora's box that won't be closed again, considering how well Skyrim is selling. If we're cranky, or seem upset, then just remember that you have things your way, and we don't - and apparently can't do anything about it besides complain and reminisce.

It can be if you have no idea how to tap into the PC market sure. But on the flip side someone like Valve or Blizzard just dominates and takes in big profits. CD Project Red also is another PC developer that's excellent, though some may argue the Witcher 2 is somehow a console port. It all really depends on what your good at, and for a lot of developers hiring and learning how to be successful on the PC is very expensive compared to just porting it.

An interesting read if you haven't seen it. http://www.vg247.com/2011/11/07/tomorrow%E2%80%99s-world-the-rise-and-rise-of-pc-gaming/

It's always been about the profit. Every business's goal is to maximize profit.

From your article:


"It’s possible to indiscriminately wield figures and pie charts to prove and disprove almost any view but nonetheless, let’s look at some numbers: interactive entertainment and videogame research firm DFC Intelligence suggests software revenue from PC games will outperform that of consoles by 2014. In that same period, DFC also predicts that digital PC game software revenue will account for ten times that of PC packaged software products – up from the seven-fold that it currently represents."

I do not believe the first statement for a second. Not when the best selling PC game of all time is The Sims.....with 16 million copies sold (not Sims 2, not Sims 3, but the original) and the next four out of five PC games in the top 100 all time games belong to WoW....Not to mention consoles releasing games that reach 5-10 million copies annually and game like Civ IV only selling 3-5 million copies (which is arguable the bestt turned based strategy game franchise).

The second one has some merit.


Moving on:

“As much as a lot of developers are happy to have a long-hardware generation because it really allows them to get under the hood, just as many other developers are excited by new tech and will push boundaries just to see how far they can go,” says Berraondo."

gamesas has a great opportunity to do this with a PC-style game in Skyrim. Why did they not do this? The money is not there is why.

Moving on...

Not going to quote the whole hardware piece but the reality is most household are buying laptops.....and as we all know gaming lap tops are a bit more expensive and its hard for most people to justify having a laptop for normal use and a gaming rig for gaming. The utility of a laptop is going to win out, especially if you can buy one for 500-600 and a console at 300.

Of course you always have the high-end PC users but that market is really small. Its why the high end cards are so expensive NVIDA/AMD cant sell it on volume.


With all that said, I'm guy who is really drawing semi-logical conclusions on incomplete and inadequate information. So take it for what it's worth. PC has to become more like console in almost every way but game design. From distribution, to marketing to hardware.....and that's hard in such a saturated market of PC makers and constantly changing GPU hardware that to most seems obsolete 18-24 months after release/purchase, which coincidentally is the average development time for a AAA title. This goes to the PC makers as well.....who do not have the sole interest of gaming when selling their computers a luxury the consoles have.

I'm still not done with the first Morrowind bone I got in 2003. I'm only half way through, then BLAM came Oblivion. About halfway through Oblivion, BLAM came Skyrim. Crap it takes me long enough to gather the funds needed to buy computers to play their latest games I'm always a couple years behind the tech. Throw me a bone and let me finish it.

People are bringing up plenty of answers that I sure as heck could not come up with on my own, so I figured I might as round up a few unanswered questions I saw.

I noticed alot of people bringing up "the Sims" as a caounter-argument as why it is one of the best selling games known to man, and that is the ability to create, to have control and do what you wish to do. Same goes for minecraft and other sandbox games like that.

Also, The OP does have a point with the streamlining of games, but if every game ws like that, a whole community on its own would be ignored. Also, the thing that allows people to play games like skyrim and other RPGs is the storyline. The storyline engulfs the layer, makes them feel like a part of something.
I saw a video reviewing Megaman and Megaman X that shows the parts in megaman X that were encanced from Megaman classic. It goes over alot of relating matters explained in good detail and you get a few chuckles out of it as well. I cannot link it as it contains a ton of foul language, but if you wish to see it, go to youtube and search "Sequelitis: Megaman" it should be the first one.

It is like a movie that you have control over the main character. Some people do not like this, and just want to have multiple small victories as a result instead of one large one. There was an article talking about the human brain and how when people would play different games, people with larger reward ceners in the brain were stimulated by quickly completed missions than one longer and harder mission. The standard RPG player has a smaller reqard center usually and likes a challenge over quick gain.

Given you have no evidence I'm going to look at your claims with skepticism. You should understand though.

How do you provide evidence to something that is common knowledge? I am a PC nerd, and I tell all my friends that are in the market for a new PC that I could build a better one than they could get from Best Buy and stuff. the first thing that I hear out of every one of them is: "can you make me a laptop?" all my friends use laptops for a lot of things. If they are not using a laptop, they have an Ipad or android tablet to make up for it. Many people that I know frown upon desktops as they are large and not very easy to transport. It is easily proven by statistics that laptops, notebooks, netbooks and tablets are easily growing in popularity and even are rivaling Desktop PCs. Desktops will never disappear completely, as there will always be a need for the consumer who wants more power than you can get from a smaller computer.

I can understand looking at his claims with skepticism, but that does not mean they cannot be true, but only you should do some research and either prove or disprove his statement, or even mine.

What is your point? This post reeks of someone keeping their head in the sand while disputing something.