A "crazy idea" is the idea of a market that grows and grows forever. The PC is a dead plattform right now, everybody can see it on the shelves at every gamestore. The number of new PC releases is so small they put ten boxes of the same game side by side, so it looks better.

According to the NPD Group (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_080131b.html), North American retail sales of PC games came to nearly a billion dollars -- $910.7 -- in 2007. And that's not including sales through digital distribution.

A billion dollars in the N.A. retail market alone suggests that there's additional revenue to be found in other regions whose use of general-purpose computers is still growing.

And there is no sign that the market for general-purpose computers is drying up worldwide. As long as there are general-purpose computers, there will be good business to be done in making and selling games for those computers.

Even so, it's clearly not wise to assume that the mere existence of PCs is enough to guarantee the continued sales of PC games... not when console manufacturers are doing everything they can to make consumers (and retailers) believe that all the cool kids play their games on consoles (and handhelds), not PCs.

People have accepted the self-serving "the PC is dead!" comments by game console manufacturers as truth because no major PC hardware manufacturer has been equally vigorous in promoting the PC as a game platform. Perhaps the formation of the PC Gaming Alliance (http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/en/index.asp), along with Intel's purchase of Havok and game developer Offset Software, are early signals that those with a stake in PC gaming are finally ready to defend the value of the PC as a worthwhile platform for gaming.

That's not a crazy idea at all.

PC gaming is not dying, it is just in a neutral state right now because the release of the next gen consoles were recently released.

First, there are some advantages to playing on PC than compared to consoles. For FPS' you have more precision when aiming because you have a mouse rather than a joystick therefore if I am going to get an FPS, I will get it on the PC.
Same idea goes with the game StarCraft or other RTS', I would rather have a mouse and aim where I would want my troops to go than a joystick. Many people would agree with me about this statement.

Secondly, WOW is like the #1 best selling game worldwide, and it's on PC.

Thirdly, you can make maps for specific games on the PC, (Unreal Tournament/counter-strike) where in console games, you have to wait until they release new maps...BORING!
You can only download mods, custom models, weapons, ect bring so much customization to a game you wish console games can provide.

Maybe RTS can be better controlled on PCs, but RTS are heave specialized games, that can't be played be anyone new to video games. FPS can easily be controlled with a gamepad (they don't use Joysticks since 1984 on consoles). But besides this, FPS are mainly aimed at male gamer between 14 and 20, a very small group compared to all gamers.
The customization is a point, but heavy customized games are for the very specialized gamer also, you wön't get new gamers with UT Maps for download.
To me MMORPG seem to be the last PC ressort.
And the 1 Billon US$ PC Software made must be compared to the 18 Billon US$ Console Software made in the same year.

Christian, your numbers are inaccurate. The total console hardware and software sales were $18 billion, but the software sales accounted for only $8.64 billion. That's $8.64 billion combined for *all* consoles --an average per console of something like $1.44 billion if you assume the $8.64 billion is split evenly between the PS2, PS3, PSP, Wii, DS, and Xbox 360-- versus an estimated $1.1 to $1.6 billion (when adding PC retail sales with estimates for digital distribution and subscriptions, since for some reason, the economists are total dolts for not accurately tracking digital distribution and subscriptions!) for the PC platform.

Just looking at those numbers, it's clear that the PC platform is still competitive. Even if you don't include the estimated numbers for DD and subscriptions, PC retails sales were only 30% less than the average sales per console.

(Yes, I know that it's unfair from a statistical standpoint to average out the $8.64 billion across the six consoles, but I had to do something for the sake of argument. I couldn't find figures for 2007's annual software sales per console. Perhaps someone else could oblige if they have the numbers?)

Oops, here's a clarification due to a mathematical error I made and a statement I didn't explain. This paragraph:

"Even if you don't include the estimated numbers for DD and subscriptions, PC retails sales were only 30% less than the average sales per console."

Should read:

If you don't include the estimated numbers for DD and subscriptions, PC retail sales were at around $911 million, which is about 37% less than the average sales per console. That looks pretty bleak, except it's so obviously stupid to ignore DD and subscription revenue...

Carl, you are completely right about the software and hardware sales for consoles, except that the hardware sales are including peripherals which are important for the game business, but this is a minor point.
More important is that your argument about Digital Distribution isn't correct, cause the DD Titles from the consoles aren't counted either and I think VC, XBOX Live Arcade or the Playstation Store are selling lots of software.
It's not an that the economists are dolts, but more that no correct numbers about DD exist.

As an addition I would say, if your estimates for DD varies from 200 million to 700 million US$, I would say they are useless.

No, I said that my estimates for DD and subscriptions were $200 to $700 million. My guess was based on several vague numbers. Blizzard made $517 million in income, but I don't know how much of that was from subscriptions. If we assume a conservative estimate of 20% revenue from subscriptions, that's $104 million. Second, if one assumes that no more than one million copies of software were sold in the US through DD at $50 per unit, sales would still be around $50 million. That seems like a conservative estimate, since DD would include downloadable versions of Orange Box, Wow: Burning Crusade, and other huge hits. Furthermore, casual games were worth $2.5 billion in 2007, and much of that revenue is from DD. If we assume that a mere 5% of that revenue is from PC DD, that's still $125 million.

Even more importantly for developers and publishers, the profit margins off DD and subscriptions are far higher than off retail sales, but since that kind of information is privileged, we'll rarely see those figures. But think about it: if a small developer (Hanako, Popcap, Big Fish Studios, and numerous others) can make profits after selling 20,000+ units on the PC platform, and certain big developers (Epic) can't make profits even after selling 500,000+ units on the PC platform, then aren't those big developers making terrible business decisions? Shouldn't they rethink their business, marketing, and operating models? Does a car company whine about the death of the car market when the profits from their cars drop due to excessive manufacturing costs, even as other car companies make profits from streamlined production lines and finding new markets? Do razor companies claim that people have no hair when their high-end titanium razors designed for really hairy people aren't selling well anymore, even though it's really just because people decided that beards are cool again and they only need cheap razors for the occasional touch-up?