I'd like to chime in on the issue of piracy and pc gaming. I have been an avid pc gamer for 10 or so years. I own an xbox 360, but my pc is definitely my preferred method of gaming. While the console has its place (sit back on the couch and play mass effect) so does the pc: strategy games, fps, rpg, etc. In fact, I think everything with the exception of racing games are far* better on pc than on a console.
I apologize if this has already been said, though I believe it has not. The reason pc gaming is dying is not because of piracy (in any way), but because of simplicity. Firstly, you can buy any game for your xbox 360/ps3 and play immediately. No install, no wait, no EULA, no patches/drivers to find. Even MORE*** important is this: ***the high def television era has arrived. Computers have, for the most part, lost their edge over consoles. Five years ago the consoles could not compete with an average computer in terms of graphics/gameplay (mostly). Now a person needs a high end computer (3 grand from Dell or $1200 if you can build it yourself) to compete with the next gen graphics of a console. The greatest incentive for the majority of people, graphics, is won by the console. The price of a high end machine to run Call of Duty 4 at 60 fps on a pc is much more than the $400 one would pay for 360.
So we now see a reverse in the trend; before, you could get much better performance (framerate, physics*, drawdistance, AI) from a PC for a reasonable price than you could from a playstation one. Now you can get far better performance from a console than you could from a prefab PC that costs twice as much.
This effect is furthered by the fact that marketing programs have targeted console gamers. The majority of the cross platform titles are developed for a console, and then ported to the PC. Obvious performance issues ensue. A developer can also spend much less money supporting a game they have released on a console (in general; AAA titles by companies like MGS/Bungie, iD, epic, etc do spend more time on updates, but many companies do not). For a PC game, users are much more vocal, and much more connected with the game developers/community than on a console. You do not need to look any farther than sins for an example of a producer/client relationship for a PC game. Rarely would one ever expect to see such clear and responsive communication for a console game. In the case of sins, it is even remarkably synergistic for a PC game. We whine on the forums about what we want, and they actually makes it happen (thanks!)
The third and final issue I wish to bring to light is the nature of the computer. It is a home office. It is used for work, used for school, used for communications, and when you add entertainment to that extensive and time consuming list, the availability of that PC is diminished. If one, say, family has only one computer, it is much more feasible to have a console (which can compete with even top end PC hardware) for gaming than to share the PC. This does not apply to everyone (certainly not to myself) but it is an obvious, and I think, in many cases, determining factor in the choice of medium for gaming entertainment.
Now, on piracy: while it is easier to download software on a computer (bitTorrent), it can still be done on consoles. A quick mod and you can burn DVD's for play on your 360. What people tend to ignore is that it is equally difficult for an average person to have access to either of these methods. I dont think the average gamer (across the board) is any more likely to go out and find torrents/bT clients for PC software than they are to pay someone $50 to mod their xbox for them.
I would also say something to the morality/ethics of "pirating" software. I do not agree that it is a form of theft equal to stealing, say, a car. It does not cost a developer any money if someone downloads the game who wasnt going to buy it anyways. Someone can make infinite copies of software on their computer, and distribute them an infinite number of times, and if people who were going to buy the game do so anyways, no cost is incurred to the developer. While there are certainly people who will download a game before paying for it, they are an obvious minority. To even get many pirated games to work requires a certain level of tech-saavy, one which the majority of people never develop. That is not to say, universally, that downloading a game is OK. There are many companies which not only deserve*, but need a return on their investment. Obviously SD is one of those companies. That is why I bought Sins. Here is a company who deserved my money. They achieved this by giving me something I actually want, not some run of the mill, garbage remake of a WW2 shooter. There are myriad games that are released half-hazzard, where the developer couldn't care less about its customers. Those are the games that you should be enouraged to download, so these companies can stop diluting the gaming market with their terrible product, lowering the standard for all games across the board, and in essence, stealing our money.
To expand: are all games worth the same amount of money? If a game sucks, and the developer is so indifferent that it will not even bother with major, continued patches, why should we, as consumers have to pay the full $59.99 for half a game? Of course, sitting right next to that bad game is something like Sins or Oblivion which are actually complete, meaningful titles. The lackluster cases are the ones where I am glad pirating does exist, if for nothing else, to slap these devs who insult their client base in the face.
