PC gaming is dying

[hurtzDonut]

As I type, PC gaming is dying. Consoles are taking over. I don't like it, anyone reading this probably does not like it, but it is true. I read alot of these posts complaining about the AI, tiles vs hexes, etc, but without playing the demo we don't know how good it will be . The point of this is that most of "US" will buy this game, and most of will like it, warts and all. I just wanted to say thanks to Hubert and everyone else involved with keeping PC gaming alive, for now.

[fischkopf]

It's not dying, just shrinking in market share for the next little bit. It'll never die, PC gamers just want something that consoles can't deliver.

And it's so cheap to develop for PC. Just a motivated programmer and couple years work, good publisher and there you go.

Developing for consoles is whole other ball of wax...

[Wodin]

This has been running since the advent of the Spectrum.

Consoles where here, then came the computer, consoles came back, and since the snes have managed to run side by side.

There are to many hardcore PC gamers out there for it to die off.

The market may shrink but will never vanish.

Consoles and PC's are two really different markets. Consoles for the casual gamer or kid (which is evident to the kind of games released) and PC's for the older more hardcore kind of gamer.

Big computer coampnies would not invest all that money i.e. ATI and Nvidia if the PC was going to die out. It just wouldnt happen, games for the consoles will always be ported over and vice versa however the PC maket will have more of a variation.

[Some_God]

Your point is valide but this year PC will be back on the forefront... or so they say. Games like DoomIII and Half-Life 2 will turn the industry upside down, and probably bring loads of new people into PC gaming. This game (SCII) will just keep loyal fans like us entertained. It will not revolutionize but hey... its fun.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Hmmm as a board gamer, I have to actually just sit here and laugh my ass off.

PC Gaming is dying! Oh My God!!!

Hmm yeah right.

First a reality check.

Board gaming is not dying. It was small, it stayed small, it will be small tomorrow, and guess what, it ain't dying.

Ever seen what a player will pay for an ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) module on eBay?

Yeah dying riiiiiiight.

So now we have PC gaming.

I have two guys wanting me to mail them my Super Steel Panthers cd to them. You know why, because is a frigging great game.

It was released several years ago. The game is now almost a decade old. And people are STILL just playing it for the first time.

Of course Steel Panthers is a free download, and it isn't making sales anymore. But, like that's not my fault.

The Panzer General series is still a cool series. Some of them are a bit cantankerous about running on current high powered computers, but that's not there fault.

Guys like John Tiller are still making excellent wargames. But he makes WARGAMES!, he doesn't make trendy 3d real time shooter crud.

Matrix Games is doing a fine job with games all across the spectrum.

I just bought HTTR Highway to the Reich. It is a shining example, of how a game can actually not have turns, and be done RIGHT.

Of course, if the industry insists that games like HoI Hearts of Iron are great, and insists on repeating that junk with designs like Victoria, then the trade will get what it deserves.

After all this time, all the efforts of fans, the game still has it's loyal supporters yet still descibing all its many shortcomings.

So ya, I can see a large sector of the populace maybe thinking console is where its at. Because we are not giving them cause to think otherwise.

I measure a game a success, when it is still being played a decade later, not a year later.

I consider a game a success when it is considered a yardstick by which others are forced to live up to.

Today's wargame market needs to get back to being about wargames.

Eventually the 3d glitzy crowd will just bugger off to get their games from console.

And the market will be restored to what it would be best left as. Wargamers wanting actual wargames.

And that means hex loving turn using 2d graphics based designs about credible historical simulations.

Of course it doesn't have to use hexes automatically.

Garys World at War game will use regions. But it will still be a wargamer's wargame.

And we need more games like Korsun Pocket which is doing well, and more games like HTTR which gives the player command in credible real time.

Battlefields when it is done, will be a nice addition.

And I am sure hoping to some day play Combat Leader.

The market has enough PC wargaming coming out. But wargamers as a group have never been a massively large marketplace.

And that is just a fact that our wargaming hobby has to just suck back on and accept.

[Norse]

Les the Sarge 9-1, can you make an educated guess on how big the potential wargaming market is?

Someone suggested on this forum that SC sold between 25k to 50k. My guess would be 5k, perhaps 10k at the very tops. What do you think? And how much do you think a wargame needs to sell to be considered successful?

[Some_God]

I think the wargaming industry makes more than that since they release war games left and right.

Recent Examples:

Desert Rats Vs Afrika Corps

Commandos 3 Destination Berlin

War Times

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I am positive to an exacting certitude, that neither myself, nor anyone else claiming to be capable of it, can state with any useful comment, "exactly" how large the wargaming market is

Now, I happen to know, that HC and Battlefront can actually tell you how many copies of the game they have manufactured, and that is a detail they would actually know.

Of course, that is their private business, and you will have to figure out how to get them to tell ya hehe.

I can report personal observations, but they are statistically subjective observations, not scientific empirical analyses.

I can state for instance, that game X has been reported in numerous game magazines as being considered a rating of say 4.5 out of 5 by average count.

And I can state, that the predominant opinion is heavily slanted in one view points direction.

I can remark that such and such game, is liked by such and such player, that I know regularly and routinely doesn't normally care for said game. Thus making you inclined to think "hmmm what would make that person like it, when it is not normally their cup of tea".

Or I could state, that such and such game, even while being praised, is unable to be discussed even by it's fans, without them constantly bringing up a common failing.

I can of course list off lists of games, that seem to indicate a potential market. But listing ten titles released within the last 5 years, won't reveal whether they have enjoyed decent sales figures.

On size of market. Well hmm. I know how many people generally are receptive to what I call classic style wargames that live in my area. But I am in a minor town in a more or less low density population area.

Might be different if I lived in a decent sized city.

Still, I am inclined to think, that people predisposed to being wargamers, really isn't what I would call "a large market".

If I had a company that made wargames to my own tastes, you can assume I would be selling something non wargamish to actually bring in the big dollars all the same.

Unless I was specifically and particularly totally wealthy (winning 10 million in a lottery would be a nice example), I would not pretend to be capable of running a logical and finacially viable wargame producing business with any capacity to make decent profits on just classic wargames.

I don't know what Hubert Cater does for a living specifically for instance.

I would be quite pleased to hear his game was allowing him to make ends meet. But I would not be shocked to hear, he actually has a different more tangible line of occupation paying his house's mortgage.

In the 70s, even the great wargames rarely sold sums of copies anyone would freak out over.

In the 80s wargames got fancier and more expensive, but I don't think unit sales were "unusually high".

I don't think computer wargames sales in the 90s for some of the earlier classics ever sold astronomical sales sums.

But that is all me just musing over this, and drawing my own aggregate conclusions after seeing so much commentary from various sources all perculated down to an opinion.

I could be wrong

I know this much. Hasbro got groupy when their Pokemon card game didn't sell 2 billion in sales the next year.

Some companies just don't measure success the same way eh.

They own ASL (Advanced Squad Leader), but it is essentially managed by MMP (Multi Man Publishing). But they really likely don't really understand the dynamics of the game's sales potential. And sadly, MMP is not a large cash moving operation. Sooooo, a lot of guys are forced to fight over used copies of ASL modules on eBay.

And when I see someone pay 200 bucks for a module I once pay 70 for when it first came out, it tells me something.

It tells me some will pay large amounts for what they want.

But it really doesn't reveal "how many ASL players there are".

[Exel]

They've been saying that PC gaming is dying ever since the first PlayStation. As a matter of fact, PC should never have become a gaming platform in the first place, according to the analysts. Mac, let alone Atari, Amiga & Co. were far superior, but yet PC prevailed.

So PC gaming aint dying. Of course consoles have gained market shares, but you ought to remember that the whole business is growing. So the growth of consoles isn't off of PCs, they're mostly new markets they're gaining. Also, consoles simply aren't suitable for certain game genres, like strategy games, simulators and first-person shooters. The latter is arguable, since consoles do have a vast range of fps games, but as long as keyboard+mouse doesn't come standard with consoles, PC will remain as the main fps gaming platform.

[Desert Dave]

LOL!

PC gaming ain't dying.

Not even close.

What's been moribund is the modern game designer's imagination.

I don't mean imagination like... more cotton candy on a stick, at the County Fair.

I mean imagination like... giving us a Ferris Wheel that works like a laughing Giant's dangling charm.

You don't always need to re-invent the wheel.

Ferris Wheel has been around a long, long time, and as far as I can see, people still flock to buy tickets to ride.

Now,

Too many, IMHO, have been so concerned to make the NEXT different kind of amusement, they have sometimes forgotten to perfect the very great thing they started with.

There are more computers than ever, in almost geometric proportion.

Six or 7 years ago, I didn't even have one.

Now I have two, one each for me and my wife.

OK.

MORE computers than ever... it's like color TVs used to be.

MORE interest than ever... in gaming.

People have LOVED games since they first started rolling out knuckle bones back in the cave days.

What does this tell you?

Create something GOOD, and FUN, and you will have to beat them off with a slicked hickory stick.

Look what happened when Sid Meier's Civilization came out.

It WILL happen again, where some game designer WILL be in the right place, doing the right game design thing.

My poor opinion?

SC2-Blitzkrieg ... for one, and in its niche, will be THE great WW2 GS game.

The gamer's market is wide, WIDE open.

Anybody out there got moxie and grit & spit and a great game idea?

Get cracking!

Round up all the necessary suspects.

You might be the next Sid Meier or... Hubert Cater. :cool:

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Precisely.

Make something that is actually great, and you will be remembered.

Make a slightly tweaked copy of something that someone else made great, and odds are you won't be remembered.

As much as I don't like the genre, the first RTS game is the one that was "great".

Everything since has just been a copy of someone else's good idea.

No amount of glitz is going to make your game a defining moment, if you are just copying the other guy.

I personally think HC can claim to be the guy that made Grand Strategy great.

Sure there have been other that have come already.

But frankly, I think HC is the one that cracked the code.

So telling me SC looks like CoS will only get me yawning.

So what, they both modelled WW2 Europe. Like there is a reason they should look different?

I will likely be content if Gary's game is a defining global simulation.

After that point, anyone else will have gotten there late.

[J P Wagner]

DD, I do not have the skills to make my own strategic games from scratch, which is one of the reasons I am anxiously awaiting the editor!..

[Desert Dave]

... which is one of the reasons I am anxiously awaiting the editor!..

JPW,

Perhaps,

It will be something... like this:

You are still mostly innocent

And have not noticed, or been told

The World is essentially a tooth & claw Kind of place.

You have blown out all 3 or 4

Or more,

(... depending on how long you can

Stay happily sane and... remain

A game-loving kid)

Of those fire-crackling! candles.

The confetti is draped all over you, and

The Clown-blown balloons have floated

Through the roof! :eek:

You have torn through that brightly animated Birthday paper, and finally gotten down

To the... surprise!

And... what a... grand surprise!

Oh, you had... hoped.

You had wheedled and talked it up for weeks

Without end, and finally... perfectly prayed.

Now,

THERE IT IS! :cool:

You aren't surprised, and, curiously, you are.

That's how it will be.

With this new SC2-Blitzkrieg! editor.

Wait and see!

And all your small party-friends will look over

Your trembling shoulder,

And wonder?

What IS he so excited about?

Lookit that!

He can hardly stand still.

We could all understand it,

If it had been a baseball mitt,

Or a 5-gig lap-top with wireless built in!

But... this?

LOL! :confused:

[Kelly's Heroes]

Here is my view on the situation:

1) People want to play games; there's no doubt about it.

2) The problem in the PC market is that system requirements are climbing out of this world to play many PC games (costing people more money each year to upgrade), while many of those high-end games are either too buggy and/or deliver almost nothing extra in gameplay (all glitz, but little glamour).

3) Some companies will take the tried and true games such as PG2 and HoM&MIII and try to re-invent the wheel with PG3D and H0M&MIV, with disasterous results. Again, more development money is poured into creating more visuals but without the gameplay.

4) The fact that the PC industry is relying more and more on early, buggy releases of games, and using the internet as its way of patching and fixing the games later (sometimes years later).

The results of this trend are: a) the hard core gamer with patience will download the patches; the casual gamer who doesn't frequent the internet much and doesn't download patches gets turned off PC games (they're all buggy), and therefore switches to console games (not because they are better; they just work bug-free); c) gamers in general become jaded, hit "burn-out", and will refuse to buy ANY games on their initial release, and will wait to buy them when they read reviews and/or when the price drops.

5) Many companies continually try to "re-invent the wheel". For example, all PG2 fans wanted was an improvement on the basic game. Instead the developers delivered a 3D mess of a game, which eventually lead to SSI's closure.

Today PG2 is STILL being played by legions of fans, with some quite remarkable mods/campaigns/ etc being made. Six years after its release PG2 is more popular today than it ever was.

Another example: Heroes of Might and Magic III was a HUGE success. What did the developers do? They CHANGED what the gamers liked about the game: gone were the beautiful city landscapes; gone was the chess-like battlefield; etc, etc. . .

The result? 3DO went out of business. . .

Look at the games that did it right and are still popular: CIVII, CIVIII, SMAC, PG2, SPWaW, SH1, Close Combat series, MTW, AoK, etc. . .

Gamers will pay more for developers to simply improve their beloved games; not re-do the games.

For all the improvements in games that have come and gone, I still derive the best fun from CIVII, PG2, HoM&MIII, etc, etc.

Far too much development money is spent on the glitz. As a result, far too little time and money is available for gameplay and AI. As a result, these game have a short shelf life span.

In the end, many gamers get turned off the continual PC upgrade path while getting little from new games, and so may return to playing older games or may turn to using consoles (buy a console and it's good for 5 years at least) and there are NO patches to download.

I am also seeing the same trend in movies: lots of explosions and visuals, but less and less in terms of a story and character development.

Is the PC market dying? It may be shrinking, but it will never die.

As I previously mentioned, with fewer new games delivering what gamers want, they are returning to playing the older games. So while fewer new games are being sold, PC games in general are still being played by tons of gamers. Just ask most wargamers what games they still enjoy playing,and they will usually mention older games.

At least Hubert is following the tried and true trend: listening to gamers, making the game moddable, and improving on SC1.

Cheers!

[ May 01, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Not sure if SSI and 3DO went under because they tampered with PG2 and Heroes respectively.

I do know this though, I like the PGIII 3d game and I like the Heroes IV game. But I can also recognise, that PG2 and Heroes III were essentially already great games.

I think the companies could have done well to just add new materials to both games, without actually remaking them.

But sometimes people get annoyed when a company looks like they are just milking a game too.

I have all the Heroes III Chronicles releases. They're good, but some saw them as over rated fluff for cash.

Maybe they were a bit excessively same same looking.

It might have been better for 3DO to take the games guts, and turn it into a scifi adventure.

All new story and adventure, but the game would not have to be re invented.

Not sure what could have been done with PG2 though.

I have the various PG incarnations. PG, PG2, Pacific, Fantasy, Allied, People's. Didn't grab up Star General though, just not my thing.

Not sure what was left to simulate.

Might have been room for a Civil War or Napoleonic release.

But a graphics upgrade alone, won't really fire the customer much if that's really all that is being offered.

I like the new battle mode of Heroes IV, but the rest of the game really wasn't changed a great deal.

Some say the AI isn't up to the calibre of that in Heroes III.

Sometimes, a sequel won't cut it. Sometimes the designer has to actually do something new. Actually new.

As it goes, the current crop of wargames in grand 3d real time are requiing such a massive increase in computer power, it is unlikely I will be playing them.

Just can't justify a computer upgrade for 3d real time. Don't really like 3d real time much actually.

[hurtzDonut]

Exactly KH!!! I love all games, Squad Leader with all the expansions, before there was an ASL, Star Fleet Battles with the 3 ring binder of rules, VG games like Pacific War, 3rd Fleet, 7th Fleet, and even Vietnam. My main concern is that PC game designers are working them selves out of jobs. Being on the cutting edge on graphics and all the other bells and whistles might look great and get great reviews by reviewers with the newest "Alienware" PC but for most of us who can't afford to up-grade videocards or purchase a new PC every year (damn children) I can see why people turn to consoles. This response from a previous post about not having many strategy games on consoles; if they start putting hard drives on consoles can strategy games be far behind?

[J P Wagner]

I had bought a 3DO game console only because PG was available on it..while I enjoyed PG2 and to a lesser extent, PG3, the original game was still tops...sure there were complaints that it was a "rock - paper - sissors" approach to the combat system, and this critique was justified, but it still was a great game...too bad I can't get my pc version of PG1 to run effectively on my XP PC....

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:

Not sure if SSI and 3DO went under because they tampered with PG2 and Heroes respectively.

I do know this though, I like the PGIII 3d game and I like the Heroes IV game. But I can also recognise, that PG2 and Heroes III were essentially already great games.

I think the companies could have done well to just add new materials to both games, without actually remaking them.

But sometimes people get annoyed when a company looks like they are just milking a game too.

I have all the Heroes III Chronicles releases. They're good, but some saw them as over rated fluff for cash.

Maybe they were a bit excessively same same looking.

It might have been better for 3DO to take the games guts, and turn it into a scifi adventure.

All new story and adventure, but the game would not have to be re invented.

Not sure what could have been done with PG2 though.

I have the various PG incarnations. PG, PG2, Pacific, Fantasy, Allied, People's. Didn't grab up Star General though, just not my thing.

Not sure what was left to simulate.

Might have been room for a Civil War or Napoleonic release.

But a graphics upgrade alone, won't really fire the customer much if that's really all that is being offered.

I like the new battle mode of Heroes IV, but the rest of the game really wasn't changed a great deal.

Some say the AI isn't up to the calibre of that in Heroes III.

Sometimes, a sequel won't cut it. Sometimes the designer has to actually do something new. Actually new.

As it goes, the current crop of wargames in grand 3d real time are requiing such a massive increase in computer power, it is unlikely I will be playing them.

Just can't justify a computer upgrade for 3d real time. Don't really like 3d real time much actually.

Les:

PG3D and HoM&MIV did not cause those companies to close, but they were indicative of the direction those companies were moving in.

It was as if many of the old artists/producers had left those companies, and they headed in a new direction, usually against the wishes of their hard-core fan base.

It is interesting that after those two games swere releaseed that both companies failed.

Many forums castigated those two games, and we all know the power of word of mouth.

PG2: There is actually a lot that could be done for this game: make larger maps; better editors; Pacific Theatre; more detailed 2D unit graphics (I like the PG2 German units - they look good); improve on some game rules; eliminate the bugs; etc, etc.

I would rather pay money for a game that improves on a previous game I like and will play, rather than take the game in a radically new direction.

MTW, for example is an improvemnt of Shogun Total War. Rome Total War will be a further improvement of MTW. These games have essentially the same gameplay and continue to offer the gamer what they have come to like about these games.

SC2 is essentially a refinement and improvement of SC1, and that is why we are all excited about it. Hubert is listening to the gamers.

Matrix is making games the way gamers want them to be made.

When a company finds a game that is popular and sells, they should stick to refining that game, and making improvements upon it.

Cheers!

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by hurtzDonut:

Exactly KH!!! I love all games, Squad Leader with all the expansions, before there was an ASL, Star Fleet Battles with the 3 ring binder of rules, VG games like Pacific War, 3rd Fleet, 7th Fleet, and even Vietnam. My main concern is that PC game designers are working them selves out of jobs. Being on the cutting edge on graphics and all the other bells and whistles might look great and get great reviews by reviewers with the newest "Alienware" PC but for most of us who can't afford to up-grade videocards or purchase a new PC every year (damn children) I can see why people turn to consoles. This response from a previous post about not having many strategy games on consoles; if they start putting hard drives on consoles can strategy games be far behind?

I would like to see strategy games on the console. The game pad might be better suited to turn-based games.

I played PG1 on the playstation when it first came out, and played that thing to death. It also had the best user interface and on-screen setup I have seen to date.

For me, with the exception of games that Battlefront and Matrix are making, there is almost nothing other companies are making that gets me excited about computer games. Mostly it's the same old, same old - mindless RTS. . .

So I rely on playing many of the games I now have, because they offer to me what most new games don't: great TURN-BASED gameplay, moddability, and interesting challenges.

Checking many of the other forums makes me see that others feel the same way. Many gamers are returning to their favourite games because many of the newer games simply cannot offer the same bang for the buck in gameplay.

This might appear that the PC market is dying; on the contrary, there are more PC gamers today than ever before, but many are still playing their previous favourite games

[ May 01, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

JP Wagner, I had same trouble with PG1 working on my XP, but there is a Win 95 revision version that actually functions.

Doesn't take much of a fiddle, but I had it going just the other day. Found it over at Hotu.

Only requires a couple of minutes in Compatibility feature

[Wodin]

Kellyheroes,

I agree with you on the very sad state of affairs with regards to new games.

If you take matrix and battlefront out the picture there is only Battle of Britian (due next year) by Maddox games that I can get excited about.

However the games that Matrix has going and a fair few of them to on a whole look like essential purchases.

BAttlefront has SC2 and DiF and maybe Combat Mission when it has a new engine (I didnt buy CMAK as Im really waiting for a new game engine to be developed) on my hit list too.

I just will not buy anymore FPS or RTS again as Im sick to death of them. All they offer is fancier graphics but the same old gameplay which gets boring after god knows how many years.

The only RTS that has ever worked well in my opinion is the Close Combat series.

[gunnergoz]

I suspect that, as long as there are people around with money in their pockets, and with the types of interests that get them labeled as "grogs", "wargame nuts", "TBS fanatics", "hex lovers", "history buffs" and "military enthusiasts", there will be a market for serious PC wargames.

Generally, where there is a market, some bright person will step in to make a buck off it and have some fun while they're at it. (Or even better, vice versa.)

Dead? Not in my estimation.

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Wodin:

Kellyheroes,

I agree with you on the very sad state of affairs with regards to new games.

If you take matrix and battlefront out the picture there is only Battle of Britian (due next year) by Maddox games that I can get excited about.

However the games that Matrix has going and a fair few of them to on a whole look like essential purchases.

BAttlefront has SC2 and DiF and maybe Combat Mission when it has a new engine (I didnt buy CMAK as Im really waiting for a new game engine to be developed) on my hit list too.

I just will not buy anymore FPS or RTS again as Im sick to death of them. All they offer is fancier graphics but the same old gameplay which gets boring after god knows how many years.

The only RTS that has ever worked well in my opinion is the Close Combat series.

I totally agree.

The type of games that Matrix and Battlefront are making is the reason I bought a PC in the first place.

I shudder to think what the future of computer gaming for wargamers would be like without these two companies.

If people are getting jaded about PC games, then one doesn't need to look any further for the reason for it, than to see what happened to Pax Romana on its release. What could have been a very interesting Roman-era strategy game has turned into both a gaming and PR disaster. I pity the poor customers who bought that game and don't know where to find patches for it (even then the game still doesn't work properly).

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Kelley's Heroes:

I shudder to think what the future of computer gaming for wargamers would be like without these two companies.

Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

Or,

Put another way:

Build it, and they will come.

If you were surfing around on the vast Net waters, and noticed that there were NO WW2 GS games worth dry spit in a hurricane, then YOU... or one another of the fierce loyalists on this very board, might gather the necessary expertise, and make it yourself.

I could easily see that happening.

But, I fully agree about the extremely blithe & blase approach that many Computer Gaming Companies take.

For example, when I first received the computer Third Reich as a gift, I tried playing it and there were some apparent problems.

At that time, I was NOT Internet savvy, and in fact, was not even signed on.

I went to the guy who sold it to my son, and asked:

"Look, this game is junk. Are there any patches that will make it work properly? After all, my son forked over 50 bucks for this piece of s**t!"

He said, trying to be helpful:

"I will download the patch and give you the hard disc so you can copy it into your game files."

Somehow, he never got that simple chore accomplished, even though I checked back 2 or 3 times.

I vowed then to never buy another game from them. And, haven't.

One thing... I suspect this is the reason that some Companies do not put their games onto the retail shelves. If the buyer MUST purchase over the Net, then he will be well aware of Company product support, and any new patches.

IF you do go retail, make damn sure the product is finished... what's so difficult? Put it out when AND ONLY WHEN it's done.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Precisely Desert Dave

If the game is any good fine. If it isn't finished, then damnit all, finish it first, especially if your plan is to dump it on a shelf and then leave it to do its own PR work solo.

In spite of my whining about Combat Leader (which I can say I have been waiting years for), I would rather wait another year for a 70 dollar game, then get it now because I whined a lot, just to find I have another years worth of whining because it isn't actually ready to play.