What has caused the fall in PC game sales?

PC game sales are down 50%. (This was before Diablo II)

My question is why is that? Daily Radar, who is running a three part article about this, has attributed the factor to two major things, vaporware and the lack of standards in graphics cards. While I can see they're point. I believe that there is other more important causes.

There are several in my case. All of which are purely from my own experience.

I spend more time on the net now. Much of time I use to spend on games, I now spend on the net. I believe this is common trend. It's true that much of time on the net is dedicated around games, or should I say a game mainly the Ctp mp scene. But this in itself has cut down on the number of games I've purchased.

The net is also guilty for the propagation of Warez/Abandon Warez. Some will argue that warez don't effect the number of games purchased. It's true in my case, I actually stopped getting warez about two years ago, and most of the games I got I wouldn't have bought. But I still get abandon warez which cuts into my playing time. This also leads into my next point.

A lot of modern games focus more on technology than substance. I have said that I would buy an RPG with a really good story line even if they used an old engine. I'd buy a good rpg based on the Ultima 7 engine. But then why haven't I bought Thief II, or Planetscape Torment. Simple answer I just don't find the time to play them, with all of my time taken up by the net, work, social life, and the few games that Im still playing. (Fallout II, CTP, Railroad Tycoon II).

So my basic question is have you decreased your game buying, and why?

Oh and I don't believe that games now a days suck. I think there are a lot of good games available now, which you haven't picked up.
[This message has been edited by Sophanthro (edited July 08, 2000).]

[Smash]

1.The prices.Not exactly cheap.I am much more cautious about purchases after CTP.

2.Summer.Weather way to nice to be cooped up in front of my monitor.

3.Recent resurrection of my golf game.

I've literally spent thousands on games.But only 1 doesn't collect dust:Civ2.

I'm not going to buy games that become clutter after a few weeks anymore.

[CapTVK]

Chris Crawford already predicted this over a decade ago at the GDC. "At a certain age people just stop playing games (20-25 years, these days closer to 24 years)".
This rule has proved to be quite solid in the recent years. Demographics and consumer preference also play a role in this. The generation that grew up with homecomputers and PC's has basically grown up these days, so exit PC.


And if you have children you usually buy a userfriendly console with expensive (high margin) games for it instead of PC games that: A) are buggy, B)need high hardware specifications, C)Have a short lifespan.

As for the quality of games. I think there are some good games out there, but not that many as you think. If it looks and sounds good it doesn't automatically mean its a good game.


Man, now I'm in a totally nostalgic mood. I'm gonna play a game of impossible mission on my C64 emu

[Lazlo]

I have not bought a game for at least a year. Reason? Quite simple. My machine (a P100) just can´t handle all this new stuff and I can´t afford to upgrade.
I must conform myself with abandon warez, though I am getting a little bit tired. (I wish I could play Baldurs Gate or Torment!)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually I've increased my game buying. I recently bought Diablo II, and when I get bored of it (which is already starting), I'll get Icewind Dale and wait for fall for Baldur's Gate 2 and Arcanum.

I think Cap's explanation is very good. I am only 20 now so Im still, playing games, but my game buying has decreased. I also believe that many kid's are playing fewer games, if any, as they spend alot of time chatting, or on forums around the internet.

Actually, I looked at it recently and counsel sales aren't that hot, Dreamcast is selling rather poorly, but maybe ppl are just waiting for the PS2.

Imran, unless your into hack and slash, Id stay away from Icewind Dale. IIRC The guys at Interplay said they just wanted to make an old fashon dungeon game.
[This message has been edited by Sophanthro (edited July 08, 2000).]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Soph, what do you think Diablo II is, huh?

Yeah your right Diablo, just isn't my type of game. So your right, you'll probably enjoy Ice Wind.

Damn Arcanum isn't out until the fall Now that looks like a great game.

Hmm maybe I'll order Planetscape, as Im almost finished Fallout II.
[This message has been edited by Sophanthro (edited July 08, 2000).]

[Imran Siddiqui]

PLANESCAPE (not planet ), is wonderful. Great game. Question, what did you think of Fallout 2 as compared to Fallout 1? I think F2 is a better game overall; I have a friend that thinks F1 is better.

[Leonidas]

Well, I guess at some point you begin to hit the law of diminishing returns: I mean there just aren't that many great games out there. Plus, how many games can a person buy before his room starts to look like a video store.

So now before I buy a game I read all the reviews, play the demo, then wait 6 months when the price falls by 50%. Plus I don't intend to up-grade my computer for a while - so the games that I have stock-piled (mainly war/stratgy titles) will do me for years to come. At least I can jump off the up-grade bandwagon. How many times do the computer/video card/hard-drive/game companies think we can keep up-grading our computers? Well, I'm by-passing that route - I'm buying the best games now - and I'll be enjoying them for years to come.

To my mind there are just far too many SciFi/fantasy games - and most are just average games anyway. So I guess consumer exhaustion sets in and most people just wait for the odd great game or two to come out. I mean why buy CTP or TOT when Civ III is just around the corner?

------------------
Go tell the Spartans, passerby:
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

[goofydrew]

for an oldie like me, i'm into TBS games.

there has never, IMHO, been a TBS game as good as Civ. not even Civ2.

well, okay. Civ2. the rest suck...

why waste good money on a game that cannot match one you already own?

the3.14rt

------------------
how can you be in two places at once
when you're not anywhere at all?
---------------------------------
We now return you to our regular programming...
a thrilling tale from yesteryear...
which is already in progress!!!

[Urban Ranger]

Most games lack originality these days. Even if don't question that, most games are just crap. I bought Majesty, The Sims, Starfleet Command, etc. Where are they now?

Most games today lack substance, those few that have substance lack depth. I don't play RPGs anymore, maybe I'll pick up Wizardry 8 when it comes out. Among the RPG games I've played Star Control 2 is still the best. I don't know what RPG games are like these days, do they have automapping and auto note taking, features that let you concentrate on the game instead of fiddling around?

The last TBS I have played was SMACX. I just couldn't shake the feeling of "I have seen this before." ICS and micromanagement did their part to kill it.

The best games I have ever played is still UFO: Enemy Unseen and M.U.L.E.. Both are highly original. Civ is also an all-time great.

Which brings me back to my first point, originality. Warcraft was kinda fun, but then we got Warcraft II and Starcraft, which are MOTS (more of the same). UFO is still awesome, but then we got Terror of the Deep and XCOM: Apocalype, which are MOTS. Civ is still great, but Civ 2 and the rest are MOTS.

Games used to be fun, but those were the times when there weren't many and most seemed quite original. Now that we are jaded, we demand better.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited July 08, 2000).]

[dr. blackclove]

Well, I am still doing my part. In the past 3 months I have bought Sim City Unlimited (which I played less than 10 hours) and Diablo II (which I have played less than 3 hours). In the past year, I bought at least two winners: Torment and Pandora's Box, plus any number of games that I played a few times and then wiped from the hard drive (like Alpha Centauri and CTP).

Most of my game time is spent on Civ2, which has lasted for years, and years, and years.

However, I still have very little free time to spend on things like that. Lili objects if I spend too much time playing video games instead of entertaining her . Plus, I work all day in front of a computer, and sometimes I just don't want to look at a monitor again when I get home.

Still, I expect Diablo II will suck me in the way the previous Diablo did.

------------------
-Blackclove
Email: blackclove.geo@yahoo.com
Web: members.xoom.com/platehead/

Imran
Fallout 1 or 2 hmm thats a tough one. I haven't finished fallout 2, yet F2 had some notable improvements such as the NPC model. I hated it in F1 where you couldn't give your NPC better armor, so close to end they were die. For some reason I felt that Fallout 1 world was a little bit better, but then again I played that first, and I really only remember the good things. Not to say that F2's world doesn't kick ass but I feel that F1's world was a little better.

Yeah I definitely agree with Urban Ranger, games tend not be as original as they once were. I don't expect this to change. Sid Meiers stated that the expense of creating a game now, presures publishers to go with a tried and true formula rather than risk it on something new. This is especially true considering that the primary expense for games is not the developement, but the marketing. But an original game has usually been few and far between, and we don't remember the cheap imitations of the good old days.

Leonidas and Lazlo have pointed to the the upgrade barrier, Daily Radar also pointed to this, stating that it fragments an already fragmented market. Which has always been a primary strength of the counsel. When you buy a counsel you know it will be 5 years before your system is outdated, hell PSX games still sell like crazy. A PC has historically given you alot less time between upgrades.

Oh I just thought I'd make a point about games costs, even if they collect dust it may not have been a bad entertainment investment. Think about it. A movie cost ~$6.00 (an understatement) $3.00 an hour). A good game will entertain for 30 hrs a little bit more than a dollar an hour. Of course I've never heard of any one getting any action from a girl, after playing a game. If you have damn I envy you.

I believe would be the best enhancement for the gaming industry, would be a slow down in technology, this would force the companies to retool and work mainly on design, but hopefully this will happen anyway, as they see fewer and fewer people are impressed by the games killer 3d engine.
[This message has been edited by Sophanthro (edited July 09, 2000).]

[CapTVK]

I dug up one of Crawford's article from the journal of game development. Take note: this was in 1990!

quote: Portrait of the Gamer as Enemy Picture the typical computer game enthusiast. He's a white male in his twenties, well educated, and spends a lot of time every week playing games. He subscribes to Computer Gaming World, possibly Questbusters or some other specialist periodical. He is an opinion leader, guiding his friends in their purchase decisions. He spends a lot of time on national networks such as GEnie or Prodigy discussing the latest games. Most important, he spends a lot of money every year on games. Now picture a cross-hairs centered on his head. Paint an evil moustache on his face, and an ugly leer on his lips. Picture him as The Enemy. This picture doesn't seem right, does it? The games aficionado is our bread-and-butter customer, the mainstay of our business. He loves games and loves to talk about games. He's our kinda guy, the last person in the world you would want to think of as The Enemy. But there's a problem. You see, Joe Enthusiast is an activist. He makes sure that his opinions are known by the publishers. His voice carries a lot of weight because he speaks up. To use the polarized nomenclature of an earlier time, Joe is part of the Vocal Minority, as opposed to the Silent Majority who don't send in their warranty cards or write letters or post messages on the nets. "Why is this a problem?" you wonder. What could be more fair than to listen to the people who care enough to speak up? The problem here is that what may be fair to some people may be unhealthy for the industry. By listening to these people, we who create games could end up killing the industry. To explain how this could happen, I need to give some background. Anatomy of a customer base Let's think of our customers in statistical terms. We know a lot about the average player, but the market is composed of people who fall above and below the average. There have been lots of market analyses, and their results show lots of scatter, but, roughly speaking, our average player has gotten about four years older in the last eight years. This means that we're losing people as they age. The typical player enters the audience at a younger-than-average age, stays in for a few years, and then gets out. Assuming that our goal is to have the largest possible base of players, our problem is two-fold: 1) to get more people to enter the marketplace; and 2) to get them to stay in longer. Getting them in This involves more than merely getting computer owners to try one game. Our problem is to get them to try several games, to get them to really dip their toes in the water. We face two obstacles here. First is the general bias against games as an adult form of entertainment. "Games are for kids. Playing games is childish." Our best strategy here is to differentiate computer games from video games. If we can establish a public perception that computer games are to video games as movies are to cartoons, we can whittle away at that long-held bias. But that's another editorial... The second obstacle is the likelihood that the novice player will get burned by purchasing a game that is completely beyond his ken. The most dangerous games here are the sequels, games based on earlier games in a long line that goes far back into the past. Examples include the Ultima series of games, almost anything from Sierra, the SSI wargames, or any game whose title ends with a Roman numeral. Because these companies listen to their customers (or rather, the ones who talk), they refine their game systems with each new release. But &emdash; and this is the key point &emdash; the refinements reflect the tastes of the aficionados, the people who spend a lot of time with the games. These people want more depth, more complexity, more trickiness. And so the games get hairier with each new edition. Guess what happens to the poor slob of a beginner who buys one of these games? The game stomps him in the first five minutes and makes him feel like a fool. This person is not going to become an avid gamer. Thus, these games poison the well of new players. This is not what we as an industry want. And let's dispense with the marketing bull that these games are accessible to the beginner even as they are challenging to the enthusiast. That's ad copy, not honest analysis. The magazines contribute to the problem. Beginners don't buy magazines like Computer Gaming World or Questbusters; aficionados do. These magazines therefore quite properly reflect the tastes of the aficionados, bringing further pressure to bear on developers to make the games more suitable for aficionados &emdash; and less suitable for beginners. Case in point: LOOM Let's look at this problem from the other direction. Let's consider Loom, a game that was clearly designed for the beginner (see Brian Moriarty's article on page 14.) I was appalled at the reception to Loom among the aficionados. Many of these people hated Loom. "Too *!&#ing simple" was the oft-repeated complaint. True, Loom is not a game for aficionados. It is a game for beginners. It will bring new customers into our audience. It will prepare people for bigger, more complex games such as those from Sierra or the Ultima series. But the aficionados worked hard to kill this game, and I suspect that its sales suffered as a result. That's bad for our industry. A related process took place with my own game Balance of the Planet, but that's a can of worms of a different color... Keeping them in Our second broad problem is to keep players interested once they've been hooked. This is the major arguement in support of catering to the aficionados, but I think that it is misplaced. The key question here is, do the aficionados make up the majority of the gaming audience? I don't know, and I don't think that anybody knows. It's almost impossible to tell the difference between the player who hopefully buys a dozen games, trying to find one that strikes his fancy, and the player who avidly buys a dozen games, loving every one. When the only one who's talking is the aficionado, it's all too easy to congratulate ourselves that we've done a great job. When the former buyer gives up and abandons the market, we shrug our shoulders and ignore the implicit message. It can be argued that the success of the games that cater to the aficionados is the best proof that we are doing something right. That's true &emdash; but it's also true that the slow aging of the gaming population strongly suggests that we are losing a lot of our audience. Maybe we are doing something right; could we be doing righter if we weren't losing so many players? It can happen here We have a sobering precedent to consider. Back in the 1970's a company called SPI rejuvenated the flagging board wargame industry and sparked a boom in the business. For five years, SPI rode high with a series of impressive designs. One of SPI's secret weapons was its feedback survey. The principals at SPI paid close attention to those survey cards, and as a result, the SPI games grew progressively bigger, more complex, and more obscure. Introductory level games grew rare, and game rules manuals became longer and longer. Unsurprisingly, SPI began a long downhill slide, finally collapsing in 1981. The board war-games industry didn't die, but it never regained the luster of its heyday in the mid-70s. There were many reasons for the decline, of course, but catering to the aficionados was one of them. There is no law that says that our industry must continue. If we abuse our customers by catering to the needs of a subset, they could just walk away from us. What should we do? First, we should recognize that the aficionados are a vocal minority. An important one, but a minority nonetheless. We need to apply a "skepticism discount" to the comments we read on the nets or in the magazines. They don't represent the majority. Second, we need to make a greater effort to gather the opinions of the Silent Majority of customers, the people who don't volunteer their opinions. We have to go to them because they won't come to us. And finally, we should label our games with honest representations of our target market. Labels such as "Perfect for Beginners!" and "Deep, Complex Game Play!" would help us serve both the beginner and the aficionado.

Seen from today's perspective, things didn't work out exactly as was hoped

So, in the end we lost both of them. The gaming diehards/hardcore/fanatics because they couldn't stop *****ing so developers thought 'they' were the public, completely overshadowing other groups.
In the end the average joe 'public' went for the easy consoles and played happily ever after (albeit expensive), while the PC was caught in an endless loop of trying to satisfy 'the public'.

End of story.


P.S
Those five *'s mean: B-i-t-c-h-i-ng not that other favourite !-ing slang word.

Hmmmm, I guess automatic censorship does have its drawbacks from time to time
[This message has been edited by CapTVK (edited July 09, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

I agree with Chris somewhat, although I feel that there are reasons to believe that he was wrong to assume that The Gamer is an Enemy. What he should have said is The Gamer does not represent the beginners but the veterans.

What's wrong with the picture is companies are spending too much money on marketing. With all that money wasted they can't afford to target different segments, although there are games out there that seem to have a different audience in mind.

I rather the game companies to take their time to come up with a few good games than waste money on media blitzs trying to convince the buyers.

[Par4]

Well we're going to have a big year this time.

The biggies
Diablo 2, over 2 million will go up to 10 million!!
The Sims, over a million
Red Alert 2,maybe

And many more!

------------------
fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[Steve Clark]

As one who has played its first computer game in 1978 and regularly since 1988, I have seen all of the trends. My simplistic answer really has to do with marketing. Case in point, a few years ago I stopped subscribing to Computer Gaming World after 10 years. The reason why was that the style of games that they are marketing and to what audience they are aiming with their ads, I, like alot of aging boomers, are just not interested anymore. In order to appreciate much of the marketing, you have to go around and say stuff like, 'it rocks!', 'way kewl', 'it kicks a**', and other crap sayings like that. No, the folks who can readily buy games and be loyal (30-60 yr olds) are not the ones they care about.

You also have to remember that the 14-25 yr olds that the marketeers and game publishers target all grew up on video (console) games. You know their style - fast paced, action, reacting, no thinking, etc. That is why 3D action, 3D RPG and RTS games took off and not wargames and other TBS style games.

Plus, most of us here at Apolyton are still playing a 5 yr old game! That is the opposite of what the game publishers want to hear. For me, I would not hesitate to keep playing Civ2 as long as they keep putting out crap like many of the RTS and RPG games.

[goofydrew]

to steve clark...

i couldn't agree with you more...

shootem up games? i did that in nam... for real!

where are the brain games?

there are still no games out there that compare to civ or civ2...

cut the crap... give us a GOOD game... not just an established game with more guns and different guns... GET IT?

thanks steve... i've said it before, but it was nice to get some affirmative feedback...

the3.14rt

------------------
how can you be in two places at once
when you're not anywhere at all?
---------------------------------
We now return you to our regular programming...
a thrilling tale from yesteryear...
which is already in progress!!!

[Urban Ranger]

Some might argue that a strategy game or RPG game (good one, that is) is too hard for most gamers due to a steep learning curve. But that need not be the case. They can take a leaf from the books of their boardgame counterparts. Take Starfleet Battles for example. It is one of the most complicated game in existence. What they have are various level of rules: Basic, Advanced, Optional, and Commander's Level.

They could do the same thing with computer games. More detailed rules are more difficult, but also a higher degree of realism and more control.

[Bkeela]

I haven't read many of the above posts, but the main reason why I dont buy computer games, is because my computer is now obsolete, in respect to the latest game requirments. In only around a year and a half, games have advanced to such an extent, that I am out of the market. I refuse to continually buy a new computer every few years in order to play the latest games.
Doesn't really matter much to me, as I can live without a PC. Now I only use my PC for the Internet, or the occasional game of SMAC.

Bkeela.

[Urban Ranger]

SnowFire:

In that case, play the old games, not the new ones

[Imran Siddiqui]

Soph, play to the end of Fallout2. The ending is stunning and shocking and I think that made me turn to F2. Really makes the game.

And Sid is right. Games cost a lot to make. Flubs are BIG flubs, and I guess some companies don't want to take on challenges. Those that do (and do it well) are rewarded mostly (like Black Isle and Bioware, which the backbone of Interplay's RPG rule.

And yes, some of the gamers are too blame. One can point to the Civ3 list for evidence. Some of the suggestions would have made beginners completly turn off, and Firaxis would have lost tons, basically making them believe that doing that sort of innovation again would kill them. You need a balance.

But I must say, I am starting to tire of Diablo 2 (as I knew I would at some point). Some of these games really aren't as addictive as they used to be. Of course I hope BG2 and Arcanum and Harpoon4 buck that trend.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I grew up on PC games. I started out with a TRS80 model III (32k ram)! I'm now 34 and in that time I've purchased hundreds of titles.
Now, many games I've only played for a couple of days. Some have been a big let down. Need for Speed, even on my super 750, is a poor job of game programming. While somthing like Driver for $15 is great. I go with a game company that makes a few good titles. If they make enough I'll buy before I see or try it. Right now I'm very pleased with GT Interactive. Microprose was the best for a time.

As far as games go, I like a hard learning curve. Sure, it takes some time but after you understand the game it's often a lot of fun. Although some flight sims are getting a little out of hand.

CIV is ok but hey, it's getting old and it's starting to show. It's got gameplay but... well, that's about it. A game like Imperium Galactica II is getting pretty near a super modern day CIV. That game is good.

Now, as far as hardware, game companys write todays games for top end machines - they just allow them to run on 233s. Games I didnt like before the super 750, are really good. Rainbow Six rocks with some real power behind it. Same goes for Mechwarrior 3.

Horsepower! That's the key. If everyone purchased a super machine the game companys would be making some cooool stuff. Than I'd buy a 1.3ghz machine.

[dr. blackclove]

I have to ask: If die-hard gamers are such a lousy target audience, then why did Civ II become one of the hottest-selling games of all time? What about Alpha Centauri?

I think the industry has done a good job of putting out games that appeal to different segments of the population. My girlfriend loves Pandora's Box, two of my female friends are completely addicted to The Sims, and I am playing Civ II and Diablo II. My retired father is playing Rollercoaster Tycoon (or was the last time I checked). The point is, to each their own. It seems like everyone I know is playing computer games right now.

The idea of labeling games as "for beginners" or "complex, deep game play" seems like a good one to me, though. Too bad no one did it.

------------------
-Blackclove
Email: blackclove.geo@yahoo.com
Web: members.xoom.com/platehead/

[mindseye]

I'm another veteran gamer (board sims in the 70's, computer games from the IBM PC onwards), and I agree with most of what' already said, so I'll throw in something different: too many games seem to have been rushed into the market before they passed basic QA! The result is games that are promising but fatally flawed. Do the lower lifetime sales really offset the initial two or three month jump on the market?

Example: Fighting Steel, a WWII naval surface warfare sim was the only game of it's type when it came out. Many aspects of it were excellent. But the user interface was flawed in ways that a 15 minute test should've shown, and it was loaded with all sorts of bugs. Menu options didn't work (they didn't have time to implement some features, but left the options in the menus!). Result: the company, DivideByZero lost it's contract to do a follow-up game (thank heavens).

I recently picked up Gangsters (Talonsoft) which I had been meaning to do for a year. Terrific game, but again, it suffers from fundamental interface flaws a ten-year old could've pointed out. For all the investment in development, some last-minute corner cutting ruined a fine product.

It's sad to see this repeated over and over.

- mindseye
(PS: has anyone tried Homeworld?)

[Steve Clark]

Even though Civ2 has a legion of die-hard strategy gamers, it was/is a mass market strategy game. The reason Civ2 became one of the best sellers is that it was "for beginners" AND offered "complex, deep gameplay", which is something rare.

One of the point that I keep making in the Civ3 forum is that you cannot implement many of the ideas people are becoming so defensive about because it would only appeal to a smaller market. You gotta keep Civ3 simple for all levels and implement specific challenges through scenarios.

I am surprised that SMAC did very well considering that scifi has no appeal to a significant segment of the market.

[Urban Ranger]

Did anybody here play Outpost? It was one of the biggest bombs in the history of computer gaming. Lots of promises, CGW ran a big preview, then dead in the water.

Steve Clark: read my post. You can definitely have different levels of rules.

[Leonidas]

mindseye: I couldn't agree with you more. This has to be the #1 plague within the gaming industry - poor quality control. So many promising titles/games - only to be rushed out the door by the suits. Of course word spreads quickly about a poor game, which results in poor sales, which the suits then use to tell us that these types of games won't sell (D'oh).

Its gotten so bad that before I buy any game, I read every review and then play the demo - before I lay down one nickel for it.

Chris Crawford had me going until he mentioned Ultima, for this he will burn in hell. Ultima 5 was the first roleplaying game I liked. Maybe I wasn't a newbie, I played Bards Tale III first, and disliked it. What level did you have to be to teleport anyways?. Ok, Ok I guess I played Adventure Construction Set(Kit?) before that but was that for newbies? I see his point but anyone who slanders Ultima 5, 6, or 7 will feel my wrath .

He was definitely right about the quests. Police Quest anyways, I played PQ1 and liked it, PQ2 was insanely complicated, i.e who really could care less about getting a gun properly sighted.

I started out with computer games Commmodore 64, I also had an Atari 2600, this was around 87. So I wasn't on the bleeding edge of technology, hell I didn't get a nintendo till 1990, Dos games in 91. Anyways I wonder if there is any one today who starting on computer games rather then counsel, I was only half and half. With out new blood the industry will become niche, Mr. Crawford believed that it was following the advise of the hard core gamer. Yes to do this would restrict to yourself to unprofitable niche. But I can't think of any games which are overly complex these days. However, a counsel playing friend of mine said that Half-Life was to complex, he's an idiot tho . So what do I know.