Slashdot Mirror
PCs Losing Out as a Gaming Platform?
Snibor Eoj writes "The Boston Globe Online has an article by Hiawatha Bray discussing the state of gaming on PCs and consoles. He points out that PC users now suffer the same fate as Mac users have for years, that of waiting for a great game that's already out on another platform. Consoles continue to gain market share, and software companies are noticing that and writing more and earlier for consoles than for PCs."
Millions of computer users now use Linux, making it America's fastest-growing gaming solution. All we need is for every major game publisher to support every possible Linux distribution, configuration, and library version, and we're in business.
Anyone here want to sit in front of a T.V. and play Quake III Arena with horrible resolution with a game pade?
Enough said.
As long as there are first-person shooters and need for high-resolution, sharp graphics, computers will reign.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
Consoles are great for some genres of games (such as FF-style RPG's, Sports games, party games etc), but when it comes to FPS, RTS or MMOG give me a PC any day of the week. How anyone can stand playing an FPS with a controller is beyond me. Consoles are generally a generation BEHIND by the time they are released, whereas you can get the latest and greatest graphics on a PC.
Also, who wants to pay an internet connection fee PLUS a subscription fee (for XBox Live! or Sony Online) when they can just pay the internet fee and play the game for free over the net on a PC?
Many of these companies are probobally scared by computer piracy and think that releasing games onto consoles will make their games sell more. After all it is a bit harder to copy console games.
Despite claims by PC fans of what their $400 accelerator cards can do, most console games look much better than PC games for the simple reason that the console hardware is a known quantity and can therefore be optimized for.
You also don't have to deal with installation issues, device driver conflicts, patches, replacing your $100 soundcard because it causes Neverwinter Nights to crash for no apparent reason, and so forth. Plus all modern consoles have great controllers, whereas PC games can't assume they have access to anything but a keyboard and mouse.
Seriously, what was anyone expecting?
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
There are certain things that consoles currently can not do, or don't do well. MMORPGs like Everquest are much better served with PC controls, like a full size keyboard, and DSL or cable modem. First person shooters... can you say, mouse-look? As well as the use of several keyboard keys for things like strafing, etc. RTS games would be a joke without the use of a keyboard... good RTS players use all of the keyboard shortcuts.
At the same time, obviously, there are some things consoles do very, very well. Sports titles, platform games, action/fighting games. These will almost always do best on the consoles.
I suppose the point is that while some games cross over successfully (GTA3), most games are better suited for one location or the other, PC or console. Neither the PCs or consoles will disappear in the gaming world.
Mark
It seems every 6 months or so someone comes out and says that either PC's or Consoles are losing the battle. Battle of what I'm not sure. I have both consoles and a good gaming PC and I find that the games are different for each system (FPS and Strat games on the computer and fighting and racing games on the consoles (and party type games)). Wish they would give it a break already.
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
Personally I can't stand console gaming. First of all my hands can't take the strain of using the game controllers (and force feedback has no appeal to me). Second of all the games seem more geared to fast-twitch gaming and memorizing arcane sequences of triangle left right up square circle down (no karma points for pointing out what this move does, which i just made up), which doesn't interest me. Finally console gaming lacks a device equivalent to the mouse, for superior aiming and looking around.
I'll wait for games to come on PC, like GTA 3 which I just bought. Somehow I doubt I'm alone. I expect many others are in the same boat. In any case, I think this article overstates the case.
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
when the Zork trilogy hits he console. 20 years and counting...
Don't say stuff like this, even in jest. I rely on the deep pockets of obsessive gamers to continually push for advances in computer hardware performance so that I can buy the top-of-the-line from 6 months ago for bargain-basement (read, true value) prices.
PC gaming is NOT dead. Long live PC gaming!
Fewer and fewer of the latest titles will run on a PC.
It seems to me that this is no different than the consoles. If you don't own both a PS2 and an X-Box, then you're going to miss out on a lot of good games. Personally, I can't see dropping that kind of cash just for gaming.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Games are highly specialized applications that have very specific hardware needs for optimal performance. Those requirements are not the same as all other common applications (word processing, spreadsheets, desktop publishing, writing code, etc etc) with the possible exception of multimedia production. I've always been of the opinion that I'd rather play games on a machine that is specifically designed for playing games on (note that aside from pr0n, games are always the leading edge of technology precisely for that reason). I would, however, like to see upgradeable consoles...
this is getting old and so are you
blog
I have not yet read the article, but this seems patently ludicrous.
While the line between consoles and PCs may be blurred, PCs are still a far superior gaming platform in most respects.
1. Interface: My mouse 0wnz console controllers for analog input-- no argument.
2. Modifications: The inherent difficuty of modifying or hacking content in consoles is a big bar to user-made content. You may get Counter-Strike ported to xbox... but it won't be independently developed there by a bunch of students with lots of time and a cool idea.
3. Pure mind-bending speed. High-end PCs will *always* trump consoles for pure performance, simply because they cost more and don't operate on a 2-3 year product cycle.
4. Display: Until HDTV becomes completely standard, even low-end monitors blow TV quality out of the water. High-end displays will always be ahead of the broadcast standards.
5. Online play: Consoles won't be caught up to PCs in the next few years... if then.
PC gaming is far from dead and and still offers choices far more varied than games available for consoles, even if the market is smaller and PCs do not plug-and-play as easily as consoles.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
I think many of the opinions here will reinforce the general divide between /.ers and the general populace. PCs are great for games if you know how to run and configure them, but I've never heard of consoles having resource conflicts, bad drivers, or inconsistent performance issues. Anyway, /.ers should be excited that a mostly non-Microsoft platform is succeeding.
You mean I don't have to worry about how much memory I have or if I have the right video drivers on consoles? I get better controllers? I only have to connect 2 or 3 connections and I'm set to go? Bigger screen on then my PC?
Hell ya, give me a console anytime.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Until you can program for one API and have guaranteed reliabilty that device X supports feature Y then consoles will always rule. It's a lot of wasted effort to implement cutting edge effects and find that it isn't supported on another piece of hardware (i.e. Open GL extensions, EAX).
Programmers want the easy route. Write it once and make money... PC's are fragmented because all the companies are competing.
The stronghold of the PC market are games and office tools.
With Star Office, Gnu Cash and other efforts this lead is being whittled away.
If the consoles take over the game market from Windows, then there will be no real reason for new users to use Windows over Linux.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Doom III
Somewhere along the way, the number of triangles and polygons determined what kind of game you were going to make. PCs have been gaming lackeys since. Too bad. I really think a creative, resourceful effort could make a buck or two producing games for mid to low end PCs, but then again I'm a hopeless idealist.
For a while, the consoles will rule the roost...but then watch out, 1984 will happen (aka a big crash in the console market). Then computer gaming will pick up...especially when computer hardware is doing stuff that consoles cannot.
I've seen the console market rise and fall enough times to know that this won't be any different.
Humor from Penny Arcade. :-)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3
I've always said that the only thing Windows was good at was being a gaming platform. Now it doesn't even have that. Oh well.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Maybe the reason Halo is not available for the PC is because Microsoft is willing to pay the developers an insane amount of money to keep is exclusive to the Xbox. This is certianly not the case with every title.
... always reckoning that PCs were always ahead of the curve technologically and more flexible. In the end, though, I switched to console gaming (PSX, then PS2, with a GameCube in my future the minute that Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee ships) and despite not always having the state of the art, I have a lot more fun playing games now. Not to mention my couch is a lot friendlier to my @ss than my desk chair (and I have a pretty good desk chair!), the ability for friends to gather round the entertainment center, and the fact that a modern console cost about the same as a top-end video card, something not to be underestimated when you're talking about mass market trends.
Bottom line: if you're into overclocking and hardware and config geeking, PCs are great for games. If your fun is a little more casual, consoles can't be beat! Just my $0.02...
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
So, really, who cares?
Blar.
Sure consoles have great games, great graphics and fast dedicated hardware but they dont have keyboards or mice. How do you play quake or any other complex game with a controller? The flow is disrupted with strange keypad combinations or menu selections. With a PC you hit a key and something happens. And you have a lot of mobility since youre not holding a pad. Ill never go console until the interface is improved.
Sad, but true. Slashdot reported that 'The Sims' is now the best selling game of all time... did the FPS fans buy it? Nope. But kids did...
Consoles have better appeal to the masses; they're cheap, they're immediately compatible and they're immediately usable. Therefore the markets are bigger, and they're more profitable.
PCs are better for producing intelligent, detailed games... and I bet they always will be. But is the market there for intelligent, detailed games?
Now that there's a TV in every home, how many shows appeal to the lowest common denominator? Most of 'em. As games become more widespread, they might well go the same way...
Scary thought.
As consoles offer network play, pc users are going to lose out even more. Right now we get titles first in that area such as Unreal Tournament & Warcraft type games. Once people start using their consoles for networkable games, & they pull enough market share, pc users are going to start waiting on those games as well.
Computer games may disappear, but I doubt it. As long as some of us spend 8+ hours a day in a cubicle we are going to need distractions from our jobs.
I wouldn't worry about computer games disappearing until they stop developing console games on PCs.
If I had a dollar for everything some idiot writes an article like this.... Face it: there are gaming genres that are unplayable on a console. For instance, I just don't know how anyone can play a FPS on a machine without an analog (methodology, not hardware!) control for aiming. How do you aim quickly and accurately by activating a discrete?
Anonymous Cowards suck.
while i disagree with the overall statement being made here there is one thing about consoles that developers love...they are locked into one set of unchanging hardware. when you delelop a game for a console you remove the ambiguity caused by having endless hardware configurations. casting that bullshit aside allows developers to focus on making the game better and not on making the game compatable and playable to a large user base. this alone is enough to cause many companies to just shift development. there are issues with multiple platform versions and porting but by and large it's not as bad as trying to support everybody from the casual gamer with his voodoo3 to the \/\/1ck3d 1337 d00d and his gf32 TiH20 NV97.
dude.
Several issues come to mind, so allow me to hazard some guesses as to why PCs are not obviously the platform of choice:
1) Support costs for consoles are virtually nil. Even if gross revenues for console games are lower, the higher margins can result in higher profits. I am unfamiliar with licensing costs for PC vs. console. Perhaps someone will enlighten me...
2) The console base is huge and largely stable -- new features pop up less frequently. I suspect it is simply easier to plan for game development in the console arena vs. the PC arena.
3) Users like having things work well. PC games, because of system differences and software interactions and conflicts, often are buggy, require patches, blah, blah, blah. From my personal consumer perspective, I think games simply run more reliably on consoles.
4) PCs will not disappear (from the gaming world), but they may become less relevant as consoles get more complex. Right now, I'd hate to play something like Civil War Generals 2 (a personal favorite of mine) on a console. Graphics are not as good. There are lots of problems with consoles. I suspect Sony and MSFT will try to address each of these sorts of concerns going forward, but it will take time.
5) Consoles are cheaper and need less frequent upgrades to play "new" games. My Playstation outlived two computers, and I am not a new computer fanatic.
6) As processing, memory, and storage space become more and more trivial, the age of a general purpose machine that does everything sort of well seems to me to be losing ground to more efficient (smaller, cheaper, quieter, more reliable) machines specifically tailored for a particular purpose.
I don't think this means the end of general purpose hardware, but perhaps the days of being the "top dog" platform are, and should be, over. A caveat is that, from a free as in freedom perspective, this is not something I see as good. Otherwise, it makes sense viewed as a market response to the gaming world of today.
guac-foo
Lots of petrified grits
The PC gamer market has been slumping ever since the Commodore 64 lost its market share. Companies have always known that they can sell a lot more console games, because the hardware is cheaper, and more people will buy it. And, game copying is almost non-existant. Eh, it's been that way for years, I'm glad I don't need the latest and greatest games.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I totally disagree with this post. I consistently buy PC games over PS2 games cause the graphics and game depth are MUCH better than the console. And heck, the load times on a PC are much faster than the PS2 or Xbox dvd. Plus, I think the graphics are MUCH crisper at 1280x1024 21inch monitor than on a 640x480 television. Remember, TV's that have the resolution of monitors are way too high in the price range for the average human.
Possibly this is because PCs are growing up and becoming more serious. PCs are increasingly used as servers rather than game stations, and many are running OSen that don't have a lot of games available for them anyway.
OTOH, the trend towards ever higher performance is mainly driven by games, and the number of users following this trend proves the popularity of the platform for gaming. I don't think PCs will ever stop being a gaming platform of choice, unless game computers (I find `console' confusing) offer the same upgradability. PCs are always on the bleeding edge of gaming technology, which makes them attractive for both developers and gamers.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Plus, you can throw a console across the room and it'll probably still work. Try that with a Dell.
I'd say the convenence factor of consoles is why they are more popular with consumers.
And GTA is now a Playstation exclusive.
i don't think it can be said any better than this
I've never played an FPS on any console that even came close to the control precision of my optical mouse, and certain genres are going to stay more PC-friendly for some years to come (i.e. strategy).
But really, when we look 10 years down the road, the trend is toward total convergence of electronic devices, so consoles and PCs will slowly merge, if not be replaced by some new paradigm altogether.
Quick fact check...
Now it's PC users who sit with twitching fingers, waiting for PC versions of hot titles like the renowned action game Halo, presently available only on the Xbox.
Apparently the writer missed the fact that Halo is the flagship Xbox game, and that the contract on it prohibits any PC/PS2/GC ports.
For the price of a good PC video card, I can get a Playstation 2(w/ cpu, mobo, RAM, video and audio, dvd player, controller, etc.). I'll stick with the consoles.
This is an old argument and, like most speculative gaming arguments, completely baseless. PC game franchises and console game franchises are utterly different and rarely compatible. The best games are not on both platforms and never could be. PCs dominate the high-end FPS market because of the advanced control with mouse and keyboard. No controller can come close to the pinpoint accuracy of the mouse. Side scroller, adventure games are purely console games because of their purely unambitious but entertaining focus. Such games would never successfully crossover and be uniquely perfected by the other platform. Classic franchises like Lords of the Realm and RPGs (such as Baldur's Gate and Fallout) will never be duplicated on console and such entertaining and brilliant games such as Zelda and Mario series will never go to PC. The platforms will remain effectively separate, regardless of the reducing technology gap.
This will be on PC before any console. Nothing else matters.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Hmmm, the most anticipated game of the year or of new millenium if you want (Doom III) is going to be released on PC first.. No One Lives Forever 2 is coming to PC first, Unreal Tournament 2003 is on PC first.. Warcraft 3 and Age of Mythology are on PC only... Everquest is on PC only.. Sims are PC only... All the games that define genre seem to be released on PC first.. Exception comes to fighting games which is the only reason why I would own console. I had my X-box for almost a year and its sitting there collecting dust..
OK, I have both a PC and an Xbox, both similiar in configuration (PIII 733, Nvidia video chipset, Creative surround, etc etc. Except for the 512 Ram that is) I went to www.gentoo.org and downloaded and burned their Unreal Tournament 2003 Linux bootable demo. It was almost as easy as turning on the damn Xbox, 'cept I had to run pci-config (for sound) and x-setup to start the interface. Almost. I am a self admitted Linux idiot, don't know a bash from a mnt - but I am learning. I think that a self booting game is a great idea (sadly, windows XP runs the demo better - for now)
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet
There are plenty of people out there that own
a playtendoboxcube2000 that don't own a computer.
They don't have to install anything. They don't
have to upgrade any opengl anything. They don't
have to do much of anything but take breaks to
let their hands heal once in a while, and remember
where they put the instructions they never read
when they can't figure something out. They can
always call "the guy they know on tha innernet" if
they need to go download cheat codes or something.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
Its amazing how a Slashdot story about a newspaper article comes to the exact opposite conclusion that the original article does.
Did the submitter read the article past the headline?
Until/Unless consoles replace PC's by having control schemes that allow for more tactile manipulation of games, PC's will always have a distinct advantage when dealing with strategy and first person shooter games (unsurprisingly two of the most popular types of games out there). Even with many industry analysts predicting the doom of PC gaming as soon as the console war started, little has changed in my opinion. PC's still have the largest range of franchises, since none of them are "exclusive" to other systems in its marketplace (the last Mac advantage went out the window with Bungie). Sales for hit PC games are still more than high enough to provide for large production budgets. And maybe most of all, the emergence of customization and "total conversions" has been the ace up the sleeve of the PC gaming scene, Counter-Strike anyone? One might point out that Counter-Strike may be coming to consoles, but it will have arrived years after being out for PC's, and will only be released after strict quality control testing, something that isn't necessary on PC's. The console advantage is supposedly that even mediocre games on the console sell well enough to make some money for their publisher. But I think what companies are going to find is that as everyone comes to notice this, the console market will flood with games (which is happening already), and the market WILL adjust. With that adjustment the revenues for lower tier games will start to dissapear (just ask 3DO). Ultimately, the PC will always have the advantage of the niche & the constantly upgrading high-end market. And both of those are important when it comes to gaming.
PS2 and xbox now have linux ports. Both have keyboard and mice availiable. Both have networking ability. So the difference between a pc and today's console is exactly what? A pretty box?
I want to see somebody trying to play Doom 3 on a console with their low resolution & crappy texture.
Unless I read the wrong article I got a very different idea then the slashdot headline.
PC's are more powerful today, it is a good sized market, and although not the largest can be adequately profitable to maintain a healthy level of competition.
The reason pcs are losing out is because of the lack of revolutionary games. As just about every post here has stated the obvious. Different game genres play better on pc and others play better on console.
Because of the new generation of console there have been recent revolutionary or almost revolutionary games in the genres that play well on consoles. Games like Kingdom Hears, which might as well be Secret of Mana 3D. Eternal Darkness, which is totally Lovecraft. Smash Brothers Meleee, which is a genre in and of itself.
PC games have been stuck in a rut as of late. The games released for them aren't revolutionary in any way. WarCraft 3 IMO is just another RTS with improved graphics and gameplay. It didn't change the game. WC3 is still build stuff fast while balancing attack and defense. Neverwinter Nights is just Baldur's Gate, only newer and shinier. I'm not saying these are bad games. I'm just saying they don't bring anything new to the genre. They are more of an upgrade than a new game.
The new console games are bringing in all sorts of new stuff. Pikmin (sorry for all the GC examples, it happens to be the system I own) is a brand new type of puzzle game, there's nothign else like it. Animal Crossing has more to do in it than any other game I've ever seen. You could play it for years and never do everything.
New PC games like UT2003 (the demo) are just new games. THe UT2003 demo didn't amaze me in any way. There were lots of death animations and new levels, and pretty graphics. But it was the same as all the other first person shooters. It didn't change the game.
Hopefully Doom 3 will be the revolutionary game we are waiting for. Quake 1 was revolutionary by bringing in true 3D. Quake 2 was also, it perfected the 3D fps. Quake 3 was not, it simply improved the graphics, tweaked some things, and added features. When more "must play" games come out for PC PC gaming will get better. Interest in PC gaming has not dwindled. It is simply that the genres that are played on PCs are in a rut, one that should hopefully end soon.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Ah yes, another lazy journalist who does not do their homework and who could care less about the story.
PCs and Consoles are completely different markets. Sure there is some cross-over, but the majority of PC gamers could care less about console ports and vice versa. In fact, most people who have enough money for a PC have enough for a console.
PC games have a wide variety of unique titles and are especially strong in the turn-based strategy, real-time strategy, free form role-playing (BG, NWN), and first person shooters. Consoles are strong in things like sports, mario-type platform, structured role-playing (FF). I don't want to play a FPS or a RTS game on a low-res screen with a console controller. Likewise when I play a sports game with friends I want to relax on the couch and not be huddled around a PC in the office.
This guy probably knows nothing about Civilization 3, Warcraft 3, Neverwinter Nights, The Sims, Dungeon Siege, Evercrack, Quake/Unreal/CounterStrike. I could go on and on.
Consoles have not gotten to the point where they are good for internet play either. Nor will they ever be good at creating custom content. Sorry, no custom clothing for your Sims. No Counter-Strike for your old FPS. No downloading of new adventures for Neverwinter Nights.
Brian Ellenberger
Too bad for them. I refuse to buy console systems, so that means when games stop coming out for my PC, I stop playing games. That = lost revenue for them. For me, it means I'm not whittling my life away playing said games anymore, which in the long run is probably better for me.
Or perhaps more accuratley, better for my gut.
Higher resolutions won't compensate for the lack of control you have with the game pads.
There's never enough when you have too little
Speaking on behalf of long-suffering Mac users everywhere:
;)
W00t!
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
I completely agree with the stability issue. That's always been a major plus for the consoles.
Neverwinter nights is a great game for 5 minutes until it crashes...I gave up on it for now. After replaceing every driver 3 times, tweaking the bios, yada yada yada. It still crashes. Consoles have a definite advantage in a single architecture.
Sean D.
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
...is that no matter how good my computer is, I still can't get alot of of games to run.
Example: Dominion Wars
Requirements: 233 Mhz P2 w/ 64 MB ram and a graphics card that supports more then 256 colors.
My computer: 1.2 Ghz Athlon w/ 512 MB ram and a GeForce4.
Result: Runs as slow as shite. And sometimes, it doesn't even run, period. When it does, it's sad.
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
much like the stock market, this trend is less about technical capabilities and actual market and more about trends. Company X sees reports that "The trend is increasing for console games" and they interpret it to mean that the PC market is weakening for games. (of which the fluctations are above what it was 5 years ago, so deal with it) What happens next is that Company X is worried that they will be outdone by their competitors so they switch instead of modifying tactics. That is a notoriously bad mistake. The good thing about consoles is the much more stable and known configurations, the bad thing is that you don't exactly hear of patching a console game. (to which, honestly is good IMHO because it forces them to produce quality, not the crap that is usual for PC games lately). However, take the game angle out of it, and you are still left with the reality that there will always be a wide variety of hardware out there for PC's. What is need is a more centralized approach at working with these (much like OpenGL and DirectX do). However, as evidenced by Cg (among others) there is not enough being done by openGL or DirectX... so now we have even more competing and incompatable systems. Some day, there might be a reliable abstraction layer that allows for better running applications (and systems) however until that day we will just continue to take a very childish hack attempt at everything.
Here's Penny-Arcade's view on this
Since I am not a hardware engineer.
Sure would be nice to get a PS2 on a PCI card and connect Sony game controllers on the back of it.
You could save games to your hard drive and utilize your cdrom or DVD to play PS2 games. They would sell like hotcakes and Sony would solidify thier market share.
XBOX? you hearing this?
What you guys are missing is that what the typical slashdot reader wants in a gaming platform is not what a typical game player wants.
Developers can sell more games for game consoles because game consoles only cost $200. Most of you are sitting on computers that cost at least $1k, let alone you overclocking zealots who ride the crest of the performance curve. Games on consoles are simply just a lot more accessable to potential customers than games on PCs are. Buy console, by game, put game in console, play. Takes $250 and 5 minutes of plugging it in.
In the long term though, your gaming console and your PC may very well be the same thing. Prices for "necessary performance" PCs keep dropping - you can get a computer that does most user tasks for under $500 nowadays - and with HDTV, the biggest cost for owning a computer (the monitor) goes away - you don't have to buy one because your TV works great. A few years down the road, people will just spend $500 on a combined console/PC that they plug into their TV set - maybe even getting their internet over the same digital cable line their TV programs are coming in on.
Anyway, that's just the long way of pointing out that slashdot readers are not the market, so it's pretty silly to judge the market based on what slashdot readers would do. Your experience most likely does not apply. Remember, you're too smart to be the typical customer.
paintball
...people will want to play games on them.
Pundits have been predicting the death of pc games for decades. It will never happen.
Consoles are great for some kinds of games, and maybe they will dominate the industry. But people buy home computers for doing their taxes, sending email, surfing, and a thousand other things. As long as the computer is there, there's a market for making games for it.
Personally, I would rather play on a console for most games. I'm not of the financial persuasion to be able to spend the $$ on the latest hardware for a PC to make a cool game playable. My PC is a 5-6 year old dual processor Pentium Pro workstation...running Linux, it's a work horse and I like it.
I hope in the near future, with the coming of Xbox Live and the PS2 network kit, that we'll see a shift from platform specific games to platform independant games. I'd love to be able to play Halo (or whatever) over then net on a server from my xbox against people playing it on PCs, Macs, xboxen, and PS2s.
For people like me, a console levels the playing field...Spend $200-$300 on a console every couple years or spend $1000-$2000 on the latest PC tech every couple of years...I'll take the console and spend the rest of that money elsewhere. I don't need a high end PC for my wife and I to read email and surf the web. I really like playing games, online and off, but when you even the middle ground of current PC tech looks really pricey for what one spends 90% of his time using the PC for, the console just levels the playing field.
No more worries about performance, tweaking, overclocking just to remove that last bit of doubt that the reason I just got fragged was because my PC is just too damn slow!
ha. hahahahhaha....HA!
you make me laugh with your silly ideas.
hahaha
hahaha, my 19" samsung CRT running my FPS games at 1280x1024 laughs heartily at your primitive tv games.
Depends on the game, of course. However, while I recognize that mouse&keyboard rocks for FPS games, Halo did things right.
That's okay, Counter-Strike sucked anyway. Change that to TF1 (for Quake 1, not TFC for Half-Life), and I'll agree. However, as you mentioned, the line between PCs and consoles is blurring. The XBox's hard drive may eventually allow for this kind of modification. Maybe nobody's doing it yet, but we're just starting to get into real second generation games for the XBox. Give it a year.
Except that PC games will *always* pick a target platform that's 2-3 years old, simply because they need to maximize their audience. For example, Unreal Tournament 2003 just went gold (should be in stores soon), yet it's still targetting a 733MHz processor (minimum, with 1GHz recommended) and a TNT2-level video card (again, minimum, with a GF2 recommended). So what if you can buy 2.0+GHz CPUs and GeForce4 video cards if the games are still targetting two year old technology? With consoles, the hardware doesn't change, so developers gain experience and learn how to tweak it fully. Compare first generation PSX titles with the last generation of titles, for example.
HD is standard (or "standard enough", anyway). Sure, you have competing input methods, like RGBHV vs. YPrPb component vs. DVI vs. IEEE 1394, but most TVs at least support YPrPb (mine supports RGBHV and YPrPb on the same HD inputs, determined by a config menu setting). And since that's really just the connector, you can always make new connectors. If suddenly DVI becomes the standard for all HD signals (for example), then expect to see a new HD A/V pack released for the XBox the exact same day, this time with DVI outputs. The standard resolutions are already fixed (4:3 480p and 16:9 480p aren't HD, but 16:9 540p (based on 1080i), 16:9 720p, and 16:9 1080i are defined). I'm sure the PS2 and Gamecube will do exactly the same, even though neither of them have high definition support (progressive scan is not high definition, and only the Gamecube can do that between these two, and then only in certain games, and then only if you know the special button combination. The XBox does at least 4:3 480p for every game, and will do better if the game and your TV support better).
Of course, that depends on what online play you prefer (MMORPG? RTS over Battle.net? Hack 'n Slash like Diablo 2? FPS?). I think the main sticking point here will not be the quality of the gameplay (assuming that's what you mean with "[catching] up"), but that broadband is pretty much required (sure, Nintendo says they'll release a modem, and I think Sony has released a modem, but expect to see all three really pushing broadband as the way to play). Then again, maybe online console gaming will help push the broadband market into expanding. If that happens, we all win.
Agreed, though not necessarily for the reasons you list.
I agree that some games are sometimes better on consoles. For some people the problem is that there are too many games only released for one system. If you happen to like Zelda and Final Fantasy, that would be too much money to purchase both systems and both games.
It would be easier if console games were also released for the PC so that consumers have a choice.
I believe that a PC is a cheaper solution, if you prefer playing with a controller, you can easily dish out the $30 or so and get a controller for your gameport, instead of buying a $250 system just to play one game.
Is this a surprise to anyone? the console gamers always get the "good games" first. it's always been that way. When the hot gaming pieces of software were FPS with multiplayer and MMORPGS of course it looked like the damn computers were getting all the good games. In the past console didn't have the ability to connect to the internet But now they do.
And the fact that even the poorest kids in America have a console gaming system with a couple of games warrants that companies who produce entertainment software should go after that much larger market.
Look at the inner city where some households bring in a total of 15k a year and have kids. It's still a given that the kid gets a console system.
for me, it made more sense to get a US $ 200 PS2, rather than a US $250 graphics card for my computer, in order to be able to play GTA3.
Plus, since there's less hardware variation among consoles, support needs are greatly reduced.
Finally, the fact that games like Halo aren't yet available on the PC maybe has to do with exclusivity contracts; it's the Xbox's killer game and it'd hurt sales if it were available for the PC as well.
While the article has some valid points, I think it's missing quite a lot.
First, a very large fraction of games people play on PC aren't paid for. This includes illegal copying, freeware, free mod's to existing games etc etc. The "Warez" market for PC games is huge, for the consoles it's negligible. If you want a new game for your Gamecube/Xbox/PS2, you have to go out and open your wallet. There are no demo versions to download, no illegal copying to do or free mods to a game you already own.
Second, online multiplayer gaming prolongs the expected lifetime for a game. For instance Quake and Half-Life (and their mods) are games that people have played actively more than 4 years after the initial release. The experience of online gaming makes up for what it lacks in technology. For consoles, the game gets boring a lot quicker and there's nothing to help it so you have to go out and buy another game. Yes, online gaming will come for the consoles, but will the Xbox players be able to play with the PS2 players ? I doubt it.
Third, the MMORPGs available on PC offer something not even remotely available on console; community building for the players and a steady, predictable, stream of revenue for the publishers. Until we see DAOC-like revenues for consoles, the PC games will keep coming, and coming. People are paying $12.95/month for some games, which means they in effect spend the cost for a new game every four months. This is NOT petty cash for the publishers.
Also, keep in mind that the console market is sub-divided in different markets for each console system. That means a similar cost of porting to different consoles as compared to keeping up with all different video- and soundcards and OS's for the PC market.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
I used to be a game developer. Never again! When my company folded, and we were looking at contracts everything was "xbox, xbox!" Fewer publishers want to pay for a pc game anymore. That will mean fewer PC games. And unless you're making a sequel to a hit game, sorry pal, good luck. It's not a matter of making a game, that's the easy part. The hard part is getting someone to pay your staff several million for a title.
Consoles have generally gotten games long before PCs not the other way around. Tht thing is that now the console games that are being released are nearly as good as their PC counterparts. So, why wouldn't you get it for your console so that you can sit four people on the couch to play together. The PC gamer needs to see something completly revolutionary to differentiate between the consoles and their own machines.
Consoles do have one thing going for them. It is a captured audience. What are you going to do with a console other than play console games? If you have a console you don't want to just waste that by not purchasing games. PC's can make you toast or clean your room if you don't want it running a game for you.
Because of a captured audience, you will rarely see a console game released for less than $50. Companies know this and see high dollar returns with captured audience and a much smaller competetive pool. So making console games is very lucritive. Only high end PC games start at $50 and they rarely stay that expensive for long.
But PC games will never die. I have read the controller issue and that will keep PCs alive. I have read about 12 year olds programming Visual Basic shareware games and as stupid as it might seem, that will also keep it alive. There are some fantastic games that come out of non-production house setups and as long as there are way more PCs than consoles out there (see arguement about usefulness apart from games). There will be a very strong PC game market.
Sure its flamebait but its true. What would the pc have to offer if
consoles became just a little bit more powerful? Imagine if the x-box
at $199 was actually able to run windows or linux and their respective
applications. Imagine that in 3 years or so we will have HDTV's every
bit as high-res as that 21" sony monitor currently sitting on the desk.
Would we really be pluncking down the extra cash for the bomb diggity
processor and display when we could get 90% of the power at 10% of the
price?
I'm not sure, but consoles are gaining speed rapidly. The only reason I
use the computer for games right now is the increased resolution and the
ability to tweak my settings. Consoles get just a little more CPU speed
and America gets a few more HDTV's... the pc as we know it moves off the
desk and into the living room.
I can unequivocally say that my console games that display in
progressive scan look much better than any pc games at any resolution.
Take a look at on an HDTV and you will see what I mean.
A small £100 purple box can beat the fucking crap out of a £3000 pc.
I don't really game on pcs at all now, just for a bit of web browsing and word processing.
Penny Arcade just covered this topic pretty well, in response to the fallout from the announcement that Starcraft: Ghost would be console-only.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
At their release consoles will nearly always edge ahead of PCs, but after a few months the PCs will have caught up power wise, if not game wise.
I'd like to reference Penny Arcade's latest strip which I think covers the situation accurately
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Standard controllers (more then 1), and games to fit them.
What truely makes consels better is being in the same room as players who are of mixed experience levels and all playing at once.
PC hardware is perfectly capable of blowing away consoles, and for anyone who's played GTA3 on PS2 and on PC they know that it does.
While PCs have mice and keyboard combos, which is far superior for rtses and first persons, they have no standard handheld controllers.
Console controllers allow for good gaming, like a new mario, monkey-ball, or fighting game. A lot of people don't want to deal with the hassle of learning a complex rts or difficult to control first person. Super Smash Bros (for example) is easy to learn, hours of fun, and 4-player on one machine.
PC's don't hook to TVs (so they have small screens for multiple players), only have 1 person per room (usually), and have steap learning curves.
PCs need to have a good common handheld controller and they need to plug into each other so you can have at least 4. I know they exist, but they need to be included or something that will get people to have them so game developers can develop for them. They also need tv-outs commonplace on high-end video (they might have that now).
PC controllers is the only way I would consider using my PC instead of my game-cube, ps2, or other for party gaming or "casual" gaming. My PC is reserved for when I feel like making a greater commitment, like a 30 person game of Counter Strike, or some Warcraft 3 action. You can't just sit down during a meal and pick up the controller between courses (course 1 = sausage, course 2 = another sausage, mmmmm).
As an experience gamer, I know that computers are better for gaming, and worth the effort. But people need an easy fix/party game as well as the real deal, and that's why I have nearly every consel since atari 7800, and why the public still goes for them.
"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
Funny, the article was really about how PC games will always be there, even though consoles are growing faster.
I think there have been a few times in the past when consoles were growing faster than PC gaming. I don't know, but I think this thing goes in cycles. I know my friends bought up Atari 2600's faster than they bought the original PC's.
The main interesting point someone made in the article, a game devleoper, was that there will always be PC games, because there will always be PC's. Where at some point the specific console won't be there any more. So you know your PC game will have a ptentially long life.
The main contest is: consoles are maybe easier to develop for and optimize for, because you know what your customers have. OTOH, your customers already have a PC of some kind, but you don't know if they have a PS2, an XBOX, or any console.
Different things drive both markets and they will both be there. Developers will continue to develop games for whatever platform works best for them, and then if it's successful enough, port the game to the other platforms.
When you saw look better are you referring to the lower resolution that console games run at, or the lower refresh rate? As far a rendering speeds, a gf4 kicks the shit out of anything in any console right now. It's not some outrageous claim as you imply, it's fact.
Get real.
Life is too short to proofread.
A prime example of this is the new Mech game that's being released on the XBox, exclusively (for now, at least. I wouldn't count on a PC release, though - personally). (I don't recall the exact title name, but it's a Micropose game - which is owned by MS, of course). I suspect that there are many, many more Mechwarrior/Battletech fans on the PC (due to the high use of PCs by geeks, and the history of Battletech universe games being released on PC fairly exclusively). Now, personally, I don't have a game console. They're too expensive and too limited in function for me for just a couple titles that I'd like to play. (And I already have several PCs for video editing, etc.)
I'd say a large part of the situation revolves around MS trying to take over the industry, and the fact that Sega now exclusively develops games for consoles. Sega has always been a kickass game developer - Genesis had some of the best games ever (some of which still are a lot of fun to play).
A large part of it is simple economics, too. PC titles have almost always been aimed at the geeks in society. COmpanies see that almost everyone plays consoles - and it's harder to pirate games for consoles, providing secure rental potential. The fact that there haven't been any games of Half-life impact in the last couple years might be an indicator as to why. On the other hand, PC games seem to have a year or two of really good games every once in a while, and then a bunch of mediocre derivities.
Personally, it seems to me as if this is correct. I see a lot more games on PS2 and Xbox right now that I want to play than I do on PC (well, there are quite a few PC games I want to play, but they're going to be released "RSN" - Star Wars Galaxies, DN4R, et al). PS2 and Xbox games generally seem to work more on the gameplay aspect than the graphics aspect, and the PC games viceversa -this might have something to do with it.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The quality of console games will always surpass the quality of PC games as long as PC gamers don't demand anything more than WarCraft, Everquest, and Quake.
And don't talk to me about graphics...you aren't going to be playing Doom 3 in 2 years. But you are gonna be hocking the $400 waffle iron you bought to play it on eBay (you'll be lucky if you get $30.)
I laugh when I think about people who line up to be raped by Carmack's excellent Wallet-Draining adventure. Don't you realize a 2-year-old video card won't work with it? Carmack's such an inept programmer that he can't get anywhere near the graphical prowess of a Mario Sunshine-and why should he even try? You'll pay to play the same old shit, again and again.
Meanwhile, in the console world, people are playing their Mario Sunshine and Grand Theft Auto 3 without worrying about driver conflicts, cheating, etc. Professional programmers actually care about optimizing for the hardware, instead of dumping anybody who got a video card earlier than last month. Truly innovative games like Rez and Frequency are rewarded with high sales, and piracy is much lower (so gaming companies are more inclined to take chances.)
Then again, I hear FreeCell XP is pretty damn good...
(Written with Dreamcast Web Browser V. 3.0)
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
If not, then we'll start to see a dramatic slow down in PC technology because PC games are the only driving force in PC technology at the present. Also, because there will be a dramatic drop in development in PC hardware, the price of a PC will sky rocket as well to compensate for the loss of hardware sales revenue.
And, by its very nature, console hardware is static, so I don't see pioneers like Carmack and company developing for X-Box2 and then porting to the PC.
Where's the innovation at? Other than the Mario guy at Nintendo's track record, how many non-PC games have you just HAD TO HAVE? Enough so that you'd buy the hardware just for that game? A handful, maybe.
Whereas on the PC, you've got the FPS, RTS, and whatever genre you want to call The Sims for starters.
Both PC and consoles will find their best markets. Like I've always said, consoles are best for the sports games. The controls are easy. Multiplayer sports games work on the console (no split screen bs). PCs will be best for hardcore flight sims, etc. etc.
And for those few cookie-cutter clone games that will be console exclusives, it's not the first time PCs have lagged. In the beginning, XT PCs always lagged behind the Apples and the Commodores for the latest games.
Deal with it. 'Sides, if the only thing you're doing is sitting on your couch playing games all day, you've probably already got all the consoles and a PC.
Slashdot's:
"PCs Losing Out as a Gaming Platform?"
Boston Globe's:
"Despite console market share, all is not lost for PC gaming"
Neat!
Of course there are more games on consoles than on PCs: the market for console games is much bigger, it's easier to target a game for a console and there's a less piracy going on.
However it doesn't make sense to say that because there are more games being done for consoles therefore the PC as a gaming platform is obsolete.
Console games are more action driven and can be consumed in short sessions: such as racing, fighting, or platform games.
PC games are geared towards longer sessions and complex interaction: such as simulation, strategy or online games.
It's apples and oranges really...
It's going to be interesting to see how consoles perform online, but my guess is that to significantly take online gaming out of the hands of the PC, consoles will have to absorb some of the PC attributes. They've already started with the network adapter and the HD but eventually they'll have to go all the way to the keyboard. Unless some kind of revolutionnary input method comes along first but I don't think that's going to happen.
Anyway, PC games will be there as long as the PC itself.
Let's not forget that from a developper standpoint, the console is to the PC what proprietary software is to Free Software...
But in the end, there's no reason why both plateform couldn't co-exist peacefully.
And you know what? That's exactly what's going to happen...
Here is the breakdown as I see it:
PC
Consoles
I use them both for my gaming. Honestly, I generally prefer consoles because I prefer my multiplayer experience with everyone in the same room. Plus, it's so much easier to just pop a game in and play it in the family room then go into the office and boot the system.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
... and a tool. He also doesn't know 1/4 of what he thinks he knows. Ignore him: most technical people in Boston do.
* Play Half-Life multiplayer on your PC.
* Then play it on the PS2.
* Play BF1942 on your PC.
* Then play it on- oh wait.
* Instantly realize that the article is BS.
* Finally read the article to realize that the submitter completely misinterpreted what the article says wasting your time and energy.
What is music when you despise all sound?
My 1.4ghz Athlon, GeForce4, system will rip a new one in ANY console today. Holy smokes that thing rips! Unreal 2003 is amazing, as will be Doom 3, and everything else is amazing too (wolf3d, sof2, nfs porsche unleashed, etc). And have two of these babies networked together, try that with some pansy-ass console crap.
Want a taste of it? Try the nvidia wolfman demo. Realtime hair and everything. Coming to my pc!
No. The PC is WHERE THE GAMES ARE. Period.
Why should I pay $ for a console? My PC rocks.
And let's not even start on that piece of crap called the XBox. WTF. Yeah, 2 year old technology, that's what I want, Yeah. right.
Amiga was just good at games, PC were serious tools while amiga was "just a console replacement with a keyboard" to quote the infidels ;)
Funny how things changed in a matter of 10 years, and how games pushed the broad need for better technology more than CAD or 3D rendering software combined.
Anyways, saying that the PC is losing the game war is only a sensationnal catchy title to get people to react, in that respect I think it worked. In the real world, it's true that game companies face a barrier: you need a TEAM to design a big title game, it's no longuer the work of one programmer in his basement making a card game (at least for the MMORPG and FPS).
Consoles games originally were "simpler" and more arcade-oriented. While being complex in some perspective, the majority were still under the complexity level of the major PC titles (emphasis on MOST, and not ALL).
While in the PC world game companies are often facing a "pass or break" financial situation at every released title, consoles are catching up very fast with the same complexity and requirements in dev teams. You hear a lot of PC software companies being bought out or closing, I think this is one of the cause, either the project was too big for the dev team, either there was bad planning, or either the complexity was underestimated and the programmers got overloaded with work and cash ran out (i.e. bad planning).
Of course a console platform gaining more complexity will eventually face the same issues, I don't see the PC fading away anytime soon as a gaming market. The people claiming that also clamed that the PC would be dead many years ago and be replaced with "intelligent" consoles.
We're not even there yet, those webtv thing died a miserable death, and while companies like microsoft can afford losing million to make the concept real, if they really want this to pass, they will have to offer something that the PC doesn't offer, or offer it in a way that the PC looks obsolete by 10 years. DRM (i.e. restriction and proprietary solutions) is one of the "solution" and will not make this paradign shift happen, this is a very bad idea, we don't need to extend on this. So I don't see what else could.
Unless microsoft releases a console with a geforce 5, or buys out both ATI and NVIDIA and boycott PCs, it will simply not happen for the next few years.
To conclude, I'd say that the Console market and hardware looks more and more like a PC, with upgradable options (DVD, remotes, steering wheels, etc), PC video graphic chips, PC-like media instead of cardriges, etc. Console to PC way more than the PC trying to look like a console. So if they need to do that shifting in order to get more sales and keep up with technology, what does that tell you?
Yes of course some companies are delaying on PC, who cares, some others are releasing on PC way faster than console, no need to be alarmist about it, it's a buisness decision, and there's no number out yet saying if it was a good one or not.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
If numbers are all that people care about, let them open the spill gates for the console games. IMHO, the console games just suck. GTA3 is the best console game that I have played, yet it lacked the strong story line that you woould expect from a bioware title, the fast pace that you would demand from an ID title, and the beutiful graphics that you would find in almost any recent PC title.
My point is that sure there may be some good games. There may even be some great ones (anything squaresoft touches turns to gold) but what does all that show about the state of the art? Nothing. Standard, yet ghetto hardware is never going to take over.
So untill ID releases quake 4 on the XBox, and bioware develops BG3 for the ps2 I won't give a shit. If the day comes that I can get a better experience by playing on a console, I will switch. But if anyone thinks that some BS propaganda is going to make consoles look any better, they have annother thing comming.
Why does it have to be an exclusive thing? The author seems to miss a key point that people can and do own both. I am a die hard gamer, I own modern consoles and I just spent a bit too much (possible?) money on upgrading my pc. People are not jumping ship for one or the other. I do not know of a single person who has "left" computer gaming for consoles. They both have their own unique market. A pc will never do fighting games as well as a console, because its just not as easy to get 4 people around a compter screen playing tekken as it is around a tv in a living room. But by the same token who wants to play an RTS with a 8 button joystick?
It seems to me that there have been only two games of note, halo and Starcraft:Ghost, that seem to have jumped ship for consoles. But lets look at why. Microsoft bought halo to push its console. They purchased it in order to make it their flag ship. Now ghost I am not so sure on as details about the game are still sketchy.
The other reson PC games will survive is the MOD community. Look at Halflife and the Sims, both have been modded beyond belief. Halflife predates the PS2 and is still played quite a bit. Should I even mention Quake1?
By the same token Consoles are not going anywhere either. For simple reasons, they are much less expensive than a PC they are a bit more reliable, no drivers etc. But they are static. The Gamecube/Xbox/PS2 you buy today will be the same as the one you buy tomorrow. This is a double edged sword, yes its easier to develop/optimize, but you are stuck with technology that remains static once you have pushed it to the limits you cant get any more.
But the long and short of it is both platforms are here to stay. And I am personally going to keep playing on both and be happy.
PC games are easier to copy and share than console games - that has to go into the decision process for the game makers when they decide which platform to put more resources into.
Consoles have been killing PC games for 15 years, and it will keep doing so...
the great thing is, in 3-4 years, I'll be able to read about it again.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Christ, won't these people ever give it a rest? I believe I heard similar nonsene when the PlayStation came out, and again with the PS2, and other current-generation hardware. Someone is always ready to trumpet the retirement of PCs into a "niche market". What these people don't realize is that videogaming has *always* been a niche market, and is only recently becoming a mainstream form of entertainment. Sure, I know plenty of people who enjoy a good game of UT 2003, but I know even more people who just discovered that their PC was a viable gaming platform. I know even more people who just play playstation or other consoles.
An excellent example is to look at games that make it to both platforms. Summoner is a good example. As a PC game, it sold around 50,000 copies. As a PS2 game, it sold three times that. Consoles outselling PC games is nothing new, either. The PsOne has an installed base bigger than all three current consoles combined, and it shows when you look at what constitutes a 'hit' in the respective markets. A PC game selling 100k units is an unqualified success. A console game often has to sell two to three times that to be considered a major sucess or even a break-even. Console hits often sell in the millions of units. PC games that do that kind of business are insanely popular.
What you're really seeing is a lot of PC developers (like Epic with Unreal Championship) trying out console development in-house. And I wouldn't bet the farm that Epic is getting out of the PC development buisiness any time soon. Developing for PC is cheaper, often by hundreds of thousands of dollars, than developing for consoles.
---------
Get back to me when my brain starts working.
When programmers/designers/engineers are experimenting with new game engines, graphics, etc. it starts on the PC. The PC is the tool. When it's polished up and ready for primetime, it goes to consoles. Years from now when HDTV, VGA, and Ethernet connectors are all standard on colsoles, people will be having the same argument about "ease and reliability" on the console, but "my PC has the holo-projector, and it's so much better looking." years go by - rinse and repeat.
You can download and burn PC game ISOs for free! Console games cost an arm and a leg.
No kidding. With quotes like this, too: "'There's still plenty of good revenue and good growth in PCs. If anybody wants to quit making PC games, Electronic Arts is more than happy to take the business from them.' So says Jeff Brown, spokesman for Electronic Arts, the world's largest maker of computer games."
/. plummets to the insightfulness of your
And now we get a bunch of fucking posts about how PC gaming isn't dying, the article is all wrong. No, it is dying, and here's why, I can get a console for $200, video cards are $200, console games are better, PC games suck, Donkey Kong sucks, you suck!
I know, I know. I should just pretend this story doesn't exist, and not read any of the horribly inane comments. But it's like watching a fucking train wreck. Come witness, as the level of discourse on
Even at 1024x768, graphics on a pc is constipated, the FPS is always low, and even modern pcs get their asses WHIPPED by early 1990s 32 bit consoles (Well PCS ARE 32-bit).
PCs are NOT for gaming, they are for WORKING! You cant beat a good PAL tv for good graphics. (NTSC is crap).
I'd say it's Windows that's loosing out. From day one it was clear (for me ;) that Windows is *NOT* in any way a good gaming platform.
I am (used to be at least) a great racing sims fan. And I tell you - all of them for Windows suck without exception. I mean when it decides (and it does) that it wants to swap a piece of RAM you DO get a lag (a split second) that is enough to break your rythm and plant you into the wall or sand.
I believe other games are similar.
And we are not talking about times when it decides that that popup window requires your urgent attention....
And hanging...
And (much) higher HW requirements (compare w/ consoles)...
No - it does not make a good gaming platform. You need a bare metal or realtime for that.
And no again - Linux is usually no better here, sorry.
It isn't that consoles are beating PCs, it's that PCs continually get more and more fragmented and stressful to work with. I *hate* having to play 1975 system administrator at home, yet that's exactly what I feel like when I buy high-end 3D games. And I'm a game programmer, not some clueless newbie grandma.
Why do they beat this dead horse? Maybe one day I will own just one, but right now they both have games that wouldn't be suited for each other. I can just imagine playing flight sim on the xbox - Flaps at 20%... hmm.. according to the manual I have to hit up + up + down + down + left + right + left + right + a + b + a + b + start... Please spare me the contra codes foo! I would pay good money to see console gamers and PC gamers on the same server playing any FPS! It would be hilarious watching the console gamers get circle strafed by Johnny Doe Ringo and the rest of his clan. Without mouse look playing any FPS is a joke.
And for a real state of the industry that would be just as accurate as Joe Smoe's of the Daily Planet - Go to your local Best Buy and check out the 10 aisles of PC games then compare that to the 20-30 (shit I'll give them 60 for the benefit of the doubt) XBox games they have and laugh. Half of those XBox games are still sitting on the shelf for over a year now because they suck but yet still cost $50-60? Christ, only the best PC games would venture that insulting price range. I'll keep my PC thanks and stick to the console for my once in a blue moon console game purchase. The real reason I love it is because the DVD anyway.
Disclaimer: I'm primarily talking about Windows pc games...yes, I know, there are Mac and Linux pcs, but Windows is 99% of the pc games market, and it's what I know best, so lay off. ;)
It's easier to write games for the Playstation than the PC, because every Playstation is exactly the same, and will be until the Playstation 3 comes out, probably in 2005. So programmers can concentrate on getting the last little bit of performance out of its custom-made 128-bit CPU chip.
I have *never* before heard anyone claim that Playstation development was easier than PC development. I don't know where the columnist got that from...perhaps a Sony spokeperson?
It's tough to find two PCs that are exactly alike. Game programmers spend half their time making sure that their code will run on all the millions of possible configurations. And they've got to make allowances for the users who'll plug in a newer graphics chip or sound card, and those who'll run the game on machines that haven't even come out yet.
This is extremely outdated info, as far as Windows is concerned. DirectX has (more or less) made this entire issue go away. Game developers write to the DirectX interface, not to arcane hardware specs. It's up to the hardware manufacturer to update their DirectX support.
PC games have more longevity, as every version of DirectX supports all prior versions. I am still playing DirectX 3 games written for Windows 95 7 years ago, on my latest P3 800 Mhz with a GeForce card. A console game can only be played on the console it was designed for, and they are not backwards compatible (as far as I know...not really a fan of them).
Geesh, if PCs were going to die as a gaming platform -- they never would have become a gaming platform.
Only within the last decade or so have PCs started to achieve parity with the games on their console counterparts. Go back to 1985 and tell me if you'd rather have had a 386 for gaming or a Nintendo. I'm going to go out on a limb and say *most* would have rather had a Nintendo.
Essentially, the only reason PC games have become popular is because computers have become popular. So when computers go away (and that's a whole other discussion) PC games will go with it, but not until then.
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
The only thing left out of this equation is Blockbuster. They carry copies of every game for every console in every store. How badly does that skew the numbers? How would sales numbers look if they carried every major pc game for rental as well?
I can buy a GameCube ($150), XBox ($200), a PS2 ($200), and a good computer for office use / web browsing ($300) for about $850.
What would it cost to have a PC that would run all of the best games as nicely as the above gaming hardware? Around $2000.
Add to that - I can play my GameCube on my 57inch HDTV in 720p. Sitting on my couch, with a wireless controller. Last night we played 4 player games like Bomberman, SuperMonkeyBall2, Super Smash Bros, and Waverace - with friends - while watching Monday Night Football (PIP on a 16x9 TV is really Picture Beside Picture). To play LAN games on my PC I have to sit in our office on a 17inch monitor.
Regardless of what features or addons they add to any given console, there is one advantage that the PC has: It's open.
The PC is the ideal platform for a small time developer to realize his vision. No publishers, no advertising deals, no selling your idea to clueless suits - nothing but your dev team, some cheap PC equipment, and time.
Whether you're coding your own engine or making a creative mod of someone else's, there is no better place to do that than the PC.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
If I had $1500 (US) I could buy a not-quite-top-of-the-line gaming PC with no games...
OR...
An X-Box, a Game Cube AND a PS2 and 6 or 7 games for each.
Assuming I already had an adequate TV, of course.
I metamoderate, therefore I am
This is the standard, "Is the PC becoming obsolete as a gaming machine" article. How many YEARS have we been seeing these? Even this article concludes that games for the PC are not going away yet.
I would like to remind any nay-sayers that quite a few games will be created for both the PC and a console. However, it's not as likely they'll be ported to MULTIPLE consoles. So if you get a console there will be some games you can't get because they're exclusive to another console and you'll have to buy the PC version to play it.
I think we'll eventually merge the TV/computer into the ultimate entertainment center. We're already moving that way. PC's now have surround sound, TV access and DVD players. New flat monitors are HDTV ready with TV access and connections built in. It's only a matter of time when the larger high-res screens come down in price and more people can integrate the two.
But for the time being, I'll stick with PC games. Sure there are some console-exclusive games I'd like to play, but I don't feel the need to pay $200 for a separate system to play those hand full of games. (Actually more than that because they're not all on the same console!)
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Why I hate consoles:
Competing Platforms: There is nothing quite like getting stuck with a dead console like a Sega Saturn. With a PC, you can be assured the platform won't die.
Controllers: A typical console controller costs $30. This by itself is not unreasonable. The problem occurs when you play multiplayer games that require 4 controllers. In the PC world, everyone typically plays on their own equipment. In the console world, the owner of the console usually ends up footing the $90 bill for 3 extra controllers.
Accessories & Game cost: They are way to frickin expensive. A PC Ethernet card can be purchased for $15. Dreamcast broadband adapters retailed for $70. The X-box is a dvd player but in order to unlock that functionality you need to buy their remote for an extra $30. And let's not forget the ever present annoyance and cost of memory cards. Even console games seem to be more expensive than PC games. Best Buy advertises titles for $50 as if it were some kind of deal.
Incompatibilities: This goes along with competing platforms and expensive accessories. With PC's, for practical purposes, all equipment is compatible and interoperable. With consoles, the opposite is true. A PS2 controller will not work with an xbox, hell, a PS1 controller probably won't work with a PS2. An Xbox broadband adpater won't work with a PS2. People complain about driver/soundcard/video problems in PCs, but on the other hand, my 12 year old joystick still works perfectly in my new pc. I've been using the same keyboard for 5 years. Same with a couple of my network adapters. This stuff will work with any PC.
Mods: These might make it to consoles some day, but you've got to wonder. People with PCs developing for PCs is one thing, figuring out how to develop for external proprietary systems is another.
Your description is also appropriate for the
average Amerikan's support for the Cheney-Rumsfeld
dictatorship and their gopher:
George W. Bush
George H. W. Bush - Not much
George W. Bush - Even less!
I was skeptical about not having mouse-look when I first started playing Halo. And it took a couple of days to get used to the controls. But all is well. Halo is just a great great great game and I'm slowly falling in love with my xbox. Can't wait for xbox live later this year!
Financially speaking it just makes more sense to develop games for consoles. You only need to debug 1 hardware configuration, and the target market you are selling to is much larger. These are the two biggest reasons it is more profitable to develop for console systems than pc's. It's cheaper to build a polished, stable product and you've got the likelyhood of greater sales to boot.
Requirements are in the hands of developers; they always have been. I don't blame the people who don't want to buy a $400 graphics board, etc. Of course, even most of the folks who buy the software that's "optimized" for that hardware don't miss the few frames per second they may lose.
My hardware is usually about 12-18 months behind the bleeding edge; and I have never seen a game whose minimum requirements overshoot my PC's specs. Given the range of PCs that developers have to program for, I think they do a pretty good job of making their games compatible for as many newer and older hardware platforms as possible.
On the "windows upgrade" note: any game that says it supports Windows 98 will almost always work on Windows 95 - especially since Windows 98 is little more than window dressing atop Windows 95 OSR2.5. And virtually every game released for Windows PCs is written atop the DirectX gaming platform, which is a free upgrade. Because of that, just about every game out today is backwards-compatible, software-wise, to 1997. Five years is a long time in the PC world--by which time most (non-geek) folks who have owned a PC for a while will have bought a newer one, with a newer OS preinstalled.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Given the fact that PC games and console games are for the most part comparably priced at around $50, to me it just makes more sense to buy a $200-300 game console every three years or so, than to buy a $2000 PC and have to spend more money on incremental hardware upgrades every year, just so I can play the latest games.
Not to mention that consoles "keep" really well. I've got a few old game consoles in my closet and a box full of old games. Whenever I feel nostalgic for some old game, it's a piece of cake to take out a console, plug it in, play a few games, then put it away again. With PC games, there tend to be software compatibility problems that always crop up with older games on newer systems. I don't want to have to tweak settings for an hour to just so I can play a couple rounds of Super Breakout should I get the urge.
Yes, as some have pointed out, there are some limitations to console gaming, most notably multiplayer Internet gaming. But I think that in one or two year's time, those shortcomings will vanish, and the line between game console and PC will blur significantly. I expect to see web-browsing and email become common features on game consoles in the near future. And long term, my guess is that the console will beat out the PC as the entertainment hub of the average household. Why else would Microsoft be investing in the XBox so aggressively?
Consoles suit a particular style of game and so those games get developed there first and ported to the PC later if there's enough demand (GTA3, Tony Hawks etc.)
PCs suit a different style of game and so they get those games first and the consoles have to wait, if they get them at all, and then get a stripped down version. (Wolfenstein, Doom, Half Life, Morrowind).
The market has always been like that. Anyone who played PC games ten years ago will remember what it was like only having Commander Keen when the consoles had every other platform game out there, or waiting forever for a port of Golden Axe.
Now, about the only real difference is that Microsoft desperately needs killer apps for the X-Box and so is buying up PC titles, releasing them for the X-Box and then nerfing the PC development (Halo).
Otherwise, it's exactly the same situation it's always been - development on the most suited platform and occasional, all-too-rare, ports.
Still, never let that stop people who've not been in gaming long enough to realise it's the norm panicing and proclaiming the end of the world, every time they notice one example of it.
you cannot patch a console game effectively, and for this reason, the PC game platform will endure - if only for the reason that it acts as a public beta. just look at games like Morrowind on the PC. It's gotten updates that actually make it a great game - updates that the XBOX will never see.
game developers are used to the release now and patch later product cycle - and they are getting reamed by reviewers as they try to follow the same model in console development.
additionally, game makers want to see their games (and show off their games at E3 etc) looking the best they can possibly look - and THAT is on a PC with the latest greatest hardware.
and so many more reasons having to do with playability, hackability, mods, community etc...
Go read some bible: nubible.com
I notice a lot of people are harping about consoles not having online play. Consoles have had online play and continue to do so. Beginning with the x band modem on SNES/Genesis, following with the Sega Saturn Net Link, and finally with the Dreamcast modem or broadband adaptor.
Many people still play with their dreamcast online. Check out pso-world.com for information on one of the most popular online dreamcast games, Phantasy Star Online. Online play for the dreamcast has significantly extended it's play value. You can also download and upload game saves and post high scores on websites.
If you get an error, type "OVERRIDE" or "SECURITY OVERRIDE" and then try the optimize command again.
Rez is also out for Dreamcast, if you want to get it. You have to import it, but it's worth it. You can snag a used DC for like 50 bucks nowadays anyhow.
Lordfly
hookers and grits.
Other than wishing there were more Arcade Racers available for the PC, I'm happy with the selection.
FPS & most strategy games will be better on PCs for a long time.
I gave up on PC gaming years ago and switched to consoles. It's simple -- with a PC game, when the developer gets behind schedule they can just ship whatever buggy unfinished garbage they have and (maybe) put out patches later. You can't do that with a Playstation game, because Sony won't let you ship buggy games (although they may let you ship bug-free games that aren't very fun, but that's another story). Consoles have real quality control!
the PC is DYING!!!!
You can't destroy the Earth, that's where I keep all my stuff!
I currently own 4 Nintendo systems (NES, 64, GBA, Cube), 2 PCs and a Mac. I play almost all my games on the NES, GBA, Cube and Mac.
For consoles, nothing beats sitting on my couch, playing Tetris, Metroid, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Sunshine, Eternal Darkness, Rouge Leader and the others on a nice TV with full surround (ok, so I'm just doubling the L/R channels on the rears for the older games). It completely blows away the PC gaming experience. The new games especially are just beautiful. The UI designers (for the most part) actually put some effort into making sure the game is playable within the constraints of the controller.
Most importantly, I can sit down after a day at work, fire up a console and not have to wait minutes for it to boot up and worry about it crashing or not refreshing fast enough for my hardware: everything just works (which is also why I gave up PCs in favor of Macs).
PC games became pretty dull after the advent of the FPS and RTS genres. For the most part, every new game is a variation on those themes. As far as gameplay is concerned, networked Doom was the peak for FPS and Unreal brought the genere up to 'current' graphic standards (until DNF is released, of course). On the RTS side, my favorite has always been Total Annihilation. Both Unreal and TA are available on the Mac now, which is where I play them.
Two comments on the last platform I play daily: the GBA. First, the platform has forced designers back to simpler games that must be compelling to get played. Gameplay is important and flashy graphics are not. Second, Advance Wars (probably one of the top 5 video games ever developed) has made travelling a very pleasant experience. 12 hours to Sydney, 5 nice battles, didn't even notice the time go by.
Given my experience with games, I'm not at all suprised that platforms are more important than PCs. They offer just more convenience and creative features than a PC can for the casual gamer.
And a quick comment on the costs of a console system compared to a PC: Sony Wega HD $1400-2000, + Game Cube $150, + Sony Surround in a Box (not the best, but gets you started) $300, + Lazy Boy $400: ~$2500. There's no way to get a PC setup that comfortable for that price.
-Chris
I laughed so hard I almost pissed myself. penny-arcade
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
They are small devices - they require no maintenance - the chances of failure are low - they allow you to accomplish your task quickly (getting to play the game) - they make little noise - software compatibility is assured (well across any given platform) - It is more likely that a console will be set up in the living room than a PC - They are often placed on the floor and thus evoke memories of childhood playing (for those of you that aren't children) - Shared game playing is possible e.g. drinkin' beer with yer mates and beating the hell out of 'em in SMB - You don't have to pay MS if you don't want to.... ;-) Oh.... the controllers are usually superb.
"None of this shit works" -W.Shatner
No. See Looking Glass for an example. Killed thanks to Daikatana, that oh so successful FPS.
Can anyone think of any other examples of this sort of a life cycle? Cuz it seems to be the whole basis for this article, but to my mind it's a somewhat anomolous development situation.
On your CURRENT machine. Can you? Oh wait, you have to buy a new video card, more ram, maybe a CPU upgrade.
Or maybe you can cuz you spent $3000 or you computer . . . the "dumb console gamer" spent $150 on a gamecube, that will have at least a 5 year life, at which point he'll spend another $200 on the next console.
I think that console gaming has recently been going through a new evolution of sorts. Since the release of the origional Playstation there has been a dramatic increase in the production of console games due to the inclusion of multiple platforms: Sony, Nintendo, Sega, and now Microsoft. This resulted in an increase in third party developers. Over these past 10 years alot of console gamers have been forged, many before having a PC in the home was common place.
Next comes cost and ease of use. It is far easier for the majority of video game players (usually younger people) to simply plug up a console and pop in a game. Older people, those that are not as technically inclined as the younger generation, find consoles more accessible. Furthermore, it is easier to obtain console games, since they are sold everywhere and can even be rented at the local video store.
Now-a-days one requires the newest and most expensive hardware to play the best PC games. To compete online you need broadband internet access. All of this needs to run on an operating system that requires constant attention and upgrading ($$$). Or, one can simply plop down $150 for a Gamecube, which has some awesome graphics and doesn't require hard drive space, RAM, or cause one to worry about latency issues. This new proud owner of a Gamecube can then go to Blockbuster video and rent Mario Sunshine and Animal Crossing for about $12 and be entertained for a week. The same person can then buy a used Gameboy Advanced from a Gamespot/Funco Land for $50 and get a new game for $22.
Cost, ease of use, efficiency, quality, and quantity.
The picture here just about sums it up.
Consoles these days are upgradeable, have hard drives, modems, ethernet, DVD-ROM drives, keyboards, mice, external speakers, and monitor hookups. They seem to be slowly becoming PC's. Highly standardized and specialized PC's, but PC's all the same.
Yeah, I have a webcomic...
Apparently anal warts aren't as debilitating as once thought.
i think that no matter what, the "golden age" of pc gaming is behind us.
that is, in the 1980s, a guy in a garage could assemble a game which was as good or better in terms of graphical richness and engaging game play as a product produced by a staff of developers with a million dollar budget. why? because there just wasn't as big a bandwidth in terms of graphics and memory to work with, and so their was an inherent upper limit on the graphical complexity and processing power the game could tap. therefore, the little guy was on equal footing with big gaming companies. ingeniousness at squeezing out every last bit of memory and cpu cycle decided the day rather than who could colonize the megabytes of memory and massive gpu rendering power with pretty pictures the fastest, as it is today.
there was a sort of darwinian survival of the fittest out there in the pc game authoring world back then where anyone with an idea and some time on their hands could challenge atari or nintendo or intellivision. the result is that the gamers won, because there just was more for them to choose from. a golden age for pc gaming indeed, because the console games were unapproachable by a programming hobbyist with an idea. there was no easy way to program the console beasts, while the pc was made for them to program. 12 year olds writing games in basic indeed!
however, it is obvious the pc gaming glory days are over, as a latter day john carmack (doom) or richard garriott (ultima) or alexey pajitnov (tetris) or sid meier (civilization), no matter how good their idea, could not possibly compete on the same footing with the big boys, where at the very least, the graphical complexity of the game requires at a bear minimum an entire department of graphic designers and artists.
therefore, the natural edge that pc gaming had is lost. of course the consoles enjoy an edge now and so grow in market share because they are made for nothing else except gaming, and offer a whole multitude of incentives to the big production houses, in the business arena and otherwise. now making games is done by business school grads looking for a licensing deal with hollywood action movies, rather than maniacs coding their bitmaps in assembly language from graph paper templates.
so the heyday the pc game maker enjoyed is fading away, as the average gamer is now more and more dependent on the big production houses for their big wonking graphical eye candy fix, and look less and less to the lone madman in his garage with the next great gaming idea brewing in his head, who cannot possibly compete without a stable of artists under his belt.
it is a shame, really, because all gamers loose. does anyone not remember the first time they played doom and just said "holy f***ing sh** this is cool" while a tingle went down their spine? nothing will look that revolutionary ever again i fear without a breeding ground for new ideas so easy to tap into by anyone with a keyboard, an understanding of C, and a dream.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A big advantage to console games is cheaper development. Console games generally aren't as complex in design, textures and models aren't as detailed requiring less artists, game worlds are generally simplier and smaller, console games don't have much multiplayer support, and so forth. Yes, simple games are made for both PCs and consoles, but the complex games on PCs are just more complex and take longer to develop. Consider also that mod-ability is also a requirement for many PC games - total conversions, level editors, etc.
Don't forget about the cost of continued support for PC games, such as patchs and new levels, plus all of the Internet "feedback" that PC developers have to deal with on message boards and the like. Online cheating in PC multiplayer games is something to deal with too, requiring ongoing support.
Console games are much harder to pirate too, and don't have to deal with the cost of CD-Key protection systems either.
The above is in addition to the savings developing for a "known quantity" of console hardware.
Except that PC games will *always* pick a target platform that's 2-3 years old, simply because they need to maximize their audience. For example, Unreal Tournament 2003 just went gold (should be in stores soon), yet it's still targetting a 733MHz processor (minimum, with 1GHz recommended) and a TNT2-level video card (again, minimum, with a GF2 recommended). So what if you can buy 2.0+GHz CPUs and GeForce4 video cards if the games are still targetting two year old technology? With consoles, the hardware doesn't change, so developers gain experience and learn how to tweak it fully. Compare first generation PSX titles with the last generation of titles, for example.
Actually, you're wrong here.
UT2003 set the requirements low so that slower computers could play. They did not skimp on features, and the game does take advantage of a 2Ghz chip and a GeForce 4.
It uses anything you want, but it works best with keyboard and mouse or with a Dual Shock clone, like the Thrustmaster Dual Power.
Unfortunately the game's input menu sucks. You're limited in how you can assign axes and buttons. For example, it will not use steering wheel pedals properly.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-09 -23
Poster A: Consoles are better because...
Poster B: PC's are better because...
Poster C: I like both. It depends on...
Poster D: The author is an idiot because...
90% of these posts should be marked redundant, and that is being generous. If your post falls into one of these categories, spare us and move on to the next topic.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
To put it simply, any luser can operate a console. The same is certainly not true for a PC. No matter how easy to use your operating system is, it still requires a lot more button clicks than a gaming console.
Another reason is the price - you can't make lusers understand that the money they "save" on the price of a console are in fact spent on more expensive games (where royalties charged by the console manufacturer usually account for 15->20% of the price of the game)
The Raven
The Raven
You're right. A console is only good for ... what ... 2-3 years?
And you pay...what.... $150-$200.
Meanwhile, you could buy a new PC every 3 years and spend $1,500 - $2,000.
I can see why the smart money is buying new PC's instead of consoles. Its more smarter!
....exceptional hardware/software driver detection and installation, an intuitive interface that has been copied time and again (KDE PIM?), and the largest library of software (freeware, shareware or proprietary) on the planet?
Yes, I'll be the first to admit -- Windows has been pissing me off as of late. But I'm a techie........ apparently the # of people like me versus the overall market is quite low. I can put up with the bugs in the system.......... you ask the average user to sit down with a Linux box, search the net for Linux drivers for any given bit of hardware, etc....... it ain't gonna happen.
I'll probably get troll-modded and/or flamed for this, but hey -- you're entitled to your opinion.
That's funny, my 1999-era desktop has no problems with WC3, but none of my consoles from back then support the latest-and-greatest. Face it, obselence is, if anything, a bigger problem for consoles. At least with a PC you can upgrade it piecewise if you need more power.
Remember: if the overriding issue were merely having to debug one hardware configuration, I wouldn't have my old PC next to my dual G4 so I could still play System Shock 2 and Half Life. *sigh*
The primary issue is that consoles represent a larger market than anything else out there. There may be more PCs in the aggregate, but each console represents a games purchaser -- more, a *repeat* games purchaser. This not only means that more games developers are attracted to that market, but that larger investments by larger companies (a la Kingdom Hearts) are justfied, and that iconoclastic works are more likely to find a profitable following in the larger audience. This, in turn, creates a feedback loop; the most breathtaking *and* most interesting works eventually show up on consoles, spurring more console sales, increasing the incentives for developers.
Of course, to a certain degree, the converse applies. For example, Bungie went from a basement operation in Chicago to the Redmond campus because the intense loyalty of the Mac audience allowed it to achieve an extremely high degree of market penetration. Ambrosia is doing quite well with its recent EV Nova release; user response was so high that it all but literally swamped their office with license key requests. However, such successes are exceptions, not rules.
- Babbler
On the other hand, if a console game lags or stutters, it's never going to get better. I've heard that Unreal Tournament and Grand Theft Auto 3 for PS2 suffer from low frame rates. There's no patch, no driver update, or memory upgrade to help you.
I like that Quake 2 looks better now than it did three years ago: higher res., anti aliasing, anistropic filtering. Of course, it's still 16 bits of brown.
Ahhh..the Boston Globe, where I turn for all my hard-core gaming news.
Consoles will take over the PC Gaming industry when you can no longer easily define what is a PC and what is a console.
The article touched upon the same points that EVERY ONE of these articles has always touched upon year after year. "Easier to develop for, non-changing specs, etc, etc".
Yes yes......this is all true. Add to the mix now that Consoles have finally reached a point where the games dont look inferior to their PC-based cousins. Lower resolution on a TV screen is being made up for with prettier effects and such.
But at the same time, I play games on my PC that either require high resolution (lots of small things on screen that would get lost on a low-rez TV) or require a mouse and keyboard. Grand Theft Auto III is one of the few exceptions of a game that really made me want to play my Playstation 2.
But its still the exception to the rule. I like my driving games on the consoles and my first person shooters and rpg/strategy games on the PC.
Okay, play Gran Turismo 3, Super Mario Sunshine, or Halo on your PC, and then we'll talk.
If Super Mario Sunshine were on PCs, people would see all their filth and porn collections sucked up by the mustachioed plumber.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
If i want to play games I get the latest console a few games and a VGA box (hell evem the dreamcast had one) Still cheaper each time round them blowing a crapload on a super graphics card and any related upgrades to play the latest generation of killer games.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
65.3 million units sold for PCs, but 110 million sold for consoles. Of course how many different consoles are included in that stat? Handhelds too? If you want a single machine to play the most games on it's still the PC.
Secondly, even with Direct this and that, the PC platform is a diverse and difficult platform for that stuff to be developed on. As a consumer I hate checking labels to see if I have this quarter's Nvidia chip so I can play some new game, only to buy it all and then need to upgrade a bunch of crap on the systme before windows will play it. Essentially, I've built 2 woprkstation machines, my work machine and then my game machine because I can't afford to break compilers and such by upgrading something just to play a game. Essentially you're just building a really expensive console.
I'm a geek with a bunch of computers around the house and I've been driven from the gaming market almost, I don't have the time to keep on top of it all, so I bought a PS2 about 18 months ago and I've had a blast. Nothing quite like going to the game store picking out any game that interests you and knowing that it will work without downloading new drivers or buying a new video chip or anything. They're generally good games too, I wish I had a mouse and a keyboard but those problems will be solved. No worries, just buy it and play it. The next round will have digital TV support and then the issue will be even less.
The PC's flexibility and constant improvement guarantee its viability in gaming in at least one field: emulation.
The PC ensures that I'll be able to play great NES or Genesis games years from now (without taking care of ancient systems, or modchipping consoles). The previous generation of games are often improved on PCs (try GT2 or Crash Bandicoot on Bleem!?)
Until someone creates the all-inclusive MAME/Console emulator machine for the TV (which isn't a bad idea...), the PC will continue as a viable gaming device.
Is there some playbook that all writer-hacks who do pieces on video games have to use when writing article?
"Never mind the predictable brutality and gore of the games."
What predictable and brutal drivel.
- A. The P.C. Market is growning, and a nice, even steady pace. Computer games are becoming more popular, just a 3 to 4 percent a year. Consoles, on the other hand, are constantly expanding to new markets that they had not be able to acquire before. Sports fans love the new sports games. Old Snes, and even PSX games weren't good enough, because they were ugly. Hell, even my dad, who had never been a gamer ('cept chess), bought an xbox. It just looks good. And there are other markets that consoles are expanding into, and these markets are probably readjusting the demographics of the 'gamer' sub-type. Gaming is going to the masses, finally, and in doing so, will (and has been, for a while) changing.
Not to say that everyone will upgrade to HDTV, but slowly, all new production of televisions will be HDTV, and if the prices come down fast enough, its not hard to picture the vast majority of homes(that would consider buying either a console, tivo or pc) having at least one hdtv capable device.(Anyone willing to spend $299 console will spend $400 to get the latest and greatest 40" low cost plasma(or even projection) display.)B. (Here is the dirty word:) Perhaps we are seeing the beginings of digital converagance. It's not going to be too long before we see gaming consoles with Tivo like capacities. Throw in a little bit of linux/windows ce, and we have a digital-everything box plugged into our TVs. I think the final problem, of user interfaces on low resolution displays, has been solved by the oncoming rush of HDTV.
Of course, my preference would be if everyone just started hooking their computers into their high resolution displays, in order to ensure that our set-top boxes would remain fairly commodified (Go xBox hackers!!!We want xBox executables on our P.C.s!!), but if the current trend in DRM technologies continues, I anticipate that the major manufactures would rather ship us set-top boxes that did a little word processing and light office work, reducing P.C.s to a withered subset of their current market, performing specialized operation on specialized software, though, I guess, to have a smaller, less directly 'consumerist' computing community. (We'd no longer have to worry about AOL, though) Keep in mind, I have outlined this as my worst case scenario, and what we will probably see is something between the two.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
[snip the remaining bullshit]
The difference with consoles is that you have dedicated users. I have my PC, I play Counterstrike every once in a while, and I haven't bought a single game in the past year. With a console, you can't have a casual user like myself. The only thing it is used for is games. If you ever get bored you have to go buy new games. That is why it is so attractive to game producers. Also, you can't copy DVDs very easily, so they don't have to worry about pirating too much yet.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Console makers like Microsoft and Nintendo have been tying up developers for the past couple years. They pay the bucks and give out dev kits, whereas there's no one to push for new PC games. Plus the Pc market is 5% RTS, FPS, and RPG, and 95% The Sims. The console market is much larger than the PC market so it seems to dwarf the PC market, but its still there.
When PC games start to break the technology envelope, you'll see a slight shift back to PCs. After all you can't do Doom3 on a PS2.
The console (like the PS2) was cheap and very fullfeatured for a TV appliance, and that why it's have a
big audiance . 40 millions console in one year, 10 millions since may. I don't know if PC can really compete !
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
This argument popped up at several stages in the days of the NES and Sega Master system.
We PC gamers defended ourselves by saying that the PC allows for a richer and more varied gaming experience. PC games vary from RPGs all the way down to simple arcades type games, always have and always will.
Consoles are optimised for shallower gaming experiences like Tekken etc.
I personally own damn near all the consoles made in the last 10 years & a computer that gets boost everytime blizzard or ID release a game as well as spend a good 4 to 6 hours a day gaming (gotta relax after sys admin'n all day)
Console Pros: Fighting games like doa3,smash bros, and tekken just dont work on the PC (I tried MK4 for about 5 minutes before realizing that I couldnt do a roll move on my keyboard), as it has already been posted they are much easier than having to worry about installation and driver issues, 4 players on one tv is alot better than one player on a 17" monitor, more games released, contantly evolving control, mod chips and new hacks are great (specially some of the ones I have seen for the xbox) and less cheating in multiplayer games (although mainly cuz you actually know the people playing next to you) systems
Console cons: internet play is just starting and you have to pay for it, RTS games are generally pretty bad on them, mods are not even close to as common, FPS's are horible with an analog stick (I wont even play halo because the controls annoy me too much), its starting to change but it seems like console games cant get away with as much violence and adult content, and console games seem to be a lot of the action and not as much depth as the PC games
-Ael
I've said this before on various other forums, but I believe that the future role of computers in the world of video games is as "digital hubs".
Imagine a game console that hooked up to your LAN, and interacted with your computer. Maybe you could download console games, and store them on your computer. Maybe console games could expose some api, and allow developers to create apps that worked with them. Maybe the game pulls music from your mp3 library and plays it through the console. Anyway, you get the idea.
I think that this would be a much better solution for the gaming community than the current convergence of hardware we are seeing. I really don't want to pay for a hard drive in my Playstation 2 when I have a perfectly good hard drive in my computer. I think console makers would jump all over this to keep the cost of their hardware down.
The article claims you can play any PC game on any PC but that is bullshit. I have to upgrade my PC much more frequently than my consoles and at higher prices to get a comparable playing experience, but the really really big problem with PC games is that they are so buggy that a game written for DirectX 3 won't work with the current set of graphics cards or with DirectX 8.1 on older graphics cards.
The compatibility of PS1 games on PS2 is much higher than games for Windows 95 compared to games for Windows 2000.
I won't support PC games by paying for them until they can make a game that is proven to work regardless of DirectX version or Windows version at least 10 years in the future. I might just download them though, no loss if they go bad before I finish them then...
My computer monitor displays much more detail than the TV even at comparable resolutions due to its vastly superior contrast. TVs are bright but they always seem to have poor contrast-on a nice TV it is still almost impossible to see when you play games like Gotham racing on the X-box and drive under a bridge or play a night race.
God help you if you smash into anything and bust your headlights!
I much rather have a Console optimized for games. Then a PC Optimized for Nothing (*Cough* Microsoft *Cough*). Basicly this can offer a better chance for people to switch off of Windows and Try Other systems at a young age. Most Teenages/Young Adults I talk to dont want to use an other Operating System because they want their games. If they are More games for Consoles then for PC. Why not try an other OS for some "real" "Grown Up" computing. :-)
Plus this will give better advantages to Games (once HDTV becomes popular). With Development for a sigal Platform it is easier to find and fix bugs so there is a better programing experence.
We all should thank Microsoft for making the X-Box so our games can be ported off our PC so we can install Linux
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I hate gaming on my PC. I enjoy lounging on my couch in front of my 60 widescreen Sony VEGA. I hate sitting in an office chair, tapping at keys making a stupid little man run around. I don't play FPS so it's not a loss to me. I enjoy GTA3 on my console more, I bought a PS2 because I wanted one, why pay more to make my PC play the same games with less comfort? My computer does all it wants to as is. I can burn discs, play mp3s, compile, read slashdot. That's all I need it for. If I want to play a game, I go into my living room.
"Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed" --Linus Torvalds 31-Jan-1992
To each his own my fellow gamers, coke vs pepsi, cat vs dog, pc vs console. May the games be long lived and replayable, may the eye candy dazel, the frags be furious and plentiful, and may the the game content never be dictated by Tipper Gore. Salute!
With a PC, you can be assured that your platform WILL die unless you buy all the latest and greatest. You get an inferior gaming experience otherwise.
For two people to play a game on a PC, they both need a game worthy machine, a reliable internet connection, two copies of the game, and they can't play at the same house without moving computers. That's cheaper than $90? O_o
Okay, I'll give you that. On the flip side, though: The broadband connector's only necessary IF you want to play multiplayer over the net. Most people who play console games bring their friends over and.. well be social. *hint hint, nudge nudge*
Yep, you're right about incompatibilities. These incompatibilities are what make game-consoles WORK. You have the same consistent controller design. PC's, though, it's not the same, is it? Not only do you have to have the right drivers/OS etc for those to work, you also need for the GAME itself to work with it. That's not a plus, it's a minus. You have to configure a PC-Gamepad in order to work right. Sorry, that's not a win for PC's.
Despite all of your arguments, a console is FAR less expensive to run as a game machine that PC. And that's before you mod up your PC to make it the 'ultimate gaming machine'. Don't forget that the PC has to work in order for the game to work. You have to have the right OS in working order, the right drivers, the right patches and updates, etc etc etc.
You may not like consoles, but they are lightyears ahead of PCs for gaming.
>3. Pure mind-bending speed. High-end PCs will *always* trump consoles for pure performance, simply because they cost more and don't operate on a 2-3 year product cycle.
well figure that out on a cost basis. i can get a kick ass experience on a console for $200, or a kick ass experience on a PC for $1000 minimum, and upwards of $2000 - $2500 for bleading edge games.
i picked up some consoles becayse i got sick of having to updgrade my computer every 6 months to play the latest game.
with a console, i know it iwll play and play well.
...because they are becoming more like PC's.
mmm yes, Doom, Quake, UT, that Star Wars FPS...all intelligent games. Shooting someone from far away always sends me on a mental power trip! Now Myst and Myst 2 required some intelligence, that I can agree. But FPS?
"Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed" --Linus Torvalds 31-Jan-1992
we all know that neither pc or console gaming is the end-all be-all of gaming. each has its own genre that it does really, really well.
so how come we have to sit here and argue which one is better? theyre both cheap, so i just get both....duh.
i think the real debate here is WHICH console(s) you want to compliment your pc.
my current choice is ps2...but if i have kids one day, i might get another nintendo system for them (heh, couldnt resist *ducks*)
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
There have already been over 400 posts, and still I have not seen ONE reference to Penny Arcade. It's like Slashdot is emulating PA, and nobody has bothered to notice.
e =2002-09 -23
Yesterdays comic:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?dat
And Gabe's rant this weekend:
"Wow, the response to Starcraft: Ghost has been pretty insane. I took some time this morning and visited a few message boards just to get a feel for what people thought of Blizzards latest title. It seems that an overwhelming number of you guys are pretty pissed off. I have seen links to no less than three different petitions asking Blizzard to make a PC version with robust online support. I can understand how all you PC gamers might be upset over Blizzards announcement but I for one couldn't be happier. If you have any questions about why I might be uninterested in a PC version of Ghost Just take a look at this quote from one of the many angry threads out there on this subject:
"if you honestly think 1 game is going to increase console sales you're an idiot. i'm not going to buy a console under any circumstance. if they came out with the game on pc i would've bought it, but oh well. hopefully they'll make up for the loss by becoming a 10 minute fad for teenage console kiddies."
Oh if only Ghost was a PC title with multiplayer support, then I could play it with this fucking winner. You want to know what the worst part about Blizzards past games has been? PC gamers. That's right, it's you petition signing sons of bitches that have ruined every other Blizzard game I have ever played. The thought of enjoying a well designed and masterfully produced Blizzard creation on my favorite console is just shy of erotic. No whiny bitches complaining about a huntress rush. No junior high school kids using hacks to kick my ass while calling me a n00b. No, just me and my console of choice playing through a well thought out single player campaign set in the thrilling Starcraft universe. I'll go a step further and say I hope that Blizzard decides not to include online support for their console versions. If I want to play a tactical shooter on a console while someone relates a wild tale of sexual debauchery with my mother, I'll play SOCOM. If Blizzard simply must include some kind of multiplayer experience I hope they limit it to a split screen mode. At least that way I can choose the assholes I want to play with from my own stable of friends.
-Gabe out"
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
...a PC version. They own the development company that makes Halo.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This is bad news for PC makers, as well as Intel and AMD. I've read numerous articles stating that the market for high-end machines in the home is driven by gaming. With consumers buying game consoles, there will be far less motivation to upgrade. Typically, the high-end systems carry the biggest profit margins for PC & chip makers.
Console sales will not compensate for this. The big three consoles are sold at a loss. Sony uses a proprietary CPU, Nintendo uses an IBM PowerPC chip. Only Microsoft's Xbox uses an Intel chip - in this case a low end 733 Mhz PIII - a fairly low margin chip.
[Insert pithy quote here]
at the shelf space in your local computer game store. I have seen a shrinking PC game section and an increasing PS2 game section. So much so that the PS2 games now occupy 3 of the 4 walls in the store, plus the majority of the mid-floor space. However, I do not believe that has any relavance to PC's being left in the dust. Probably, it means that the stores get more sales from the PS2 games.
Amiga... This was, is and will be the "most fun" gaming platform of all time, because of three main reasons:
1. It had ALL types of games. From strategy to football to beat`em ups, just count`em. And we`re talking milestones here, like Kick Off 2, Shadow of the Beast, Lemmings, Cannon Fodder, Worms... Really, what the hell happened to creativity that defined that era? Where`s out "new lemmings game"? It sure isn`t sims... Sims is like a stupid evolutionary step after Maxis`s "Ants"...!
2. It had ALL types of controlers. That is something that pc`s have as well, and almost ALL modern action games support from gamepads to steering weels. I just saw that all of you seemed to forget it..!
3. The most important one: You could play a TWO or THREE or sometimes FOUR PLAYER GAME ON THE SAME MACHINE. I don`t understand (and mind the language) why the fuck game developers on the PC actually REQUIRE that you connect two machines together! HELL! They could give you an option for split - screen gaming on many games, or even for simultaneous screen action..! Remember speedball, anybody?
Sorry for just saying that the vast majority of the posts I read before replying were plain stupid. I don`t want to offend anyone, but how the hell can somebody claim that "PC`s are for the intellectual gamer" and then report that "FPS`s will allways appear on this platform"? Heck, FPS`s can ALLWAYS be PORTED to a console. Don`t mind the controls, see how much Perfect Dark and Goldeneye sold until today. It doesn`t matter if you don`t like it, console gamers will buy these games like hot cakes. Do you want the PC to survive as a gaming platform? Good. Buy Syberia. Longest Journey. Sam and Max. Monkey Island. Starcraft. Red Alert. Diablo. Games that were made to be played with a mouse and suck if played with a pad - most don`t even offer the option. Games that DEMAND that you use your MIND. Instead, Tomb Raider sells by the masses, as does Quake, as will Doom 3. These games CAN and WILL be ported to consoles. Their sequels will probabbly be released first on consoles - so that "the fight against piracy" will walk a "good step", and the next thing yoy know, there WON`T be any pc games. Many posts were right: Why play an action game like Max Payne on the PC if the X-BOX version is better. For the mods? Ha! I`ve got a 56K connection, how the hell am I supposed to download them? For the controls? Well, they weren`t exactly "innovative". For the graphics? The resolution may be better, but the TV screen "looks better" and runs smoothly (as would a PC connected to it, running at 640x480 but that`s not out point)...
You prefer action games
You buy action games
You support "mindless fun"
Consoles, actually, ARE mindless fun. The conclusion? You support consoles. Now, don`t whine if PC gaming dies.
You know what the funny thing is? I`ve got over 80 CD`s with emulated titles, from all kinds of consoles. ANY and EVERY playstation game I tried couldn`t keep my attention for too long. It was just "too simple" for my taste. I just finished (again) Red Alert, befor that I ended Starcraft and, ofcourse, I played through all of Deus Ex and Longest Journey. Just think of what you`re playing...
Maybe if PCs lost the gaming sector to consoles, mom and pop would get e-mail and web browsers for their $200 consoles and forget about PCs. Then we (the hobbyists and other serious PC enthusiasts) could have them back! Some of the commercial hands would get out of the PC cookie jar and those who want to use the PC for something other than gaming and web browsing won't get drowned out by the mass of Joe 6-packs!
Do consoles crash?
Do consoles need you to know you computers inside out?
Do console games need constant updating/patching?
Can you rent PC games?
Does a PC that can run Halo beautifully cost $199?
Does MS own all of the console world?
Do cosoles require you do know/be a computer nerd?
Do consoles require maintance?
Thats why consoles are popular.
-Eric
...as a gaming platform. Almost as much as this guy.
I own a PS2 and a good PC(1.7GHz 512MB RAM, GeForce2). Lately I have found myself playing my PC more than my PS2. One of the best things about computers is that they are multipurpose machines. I can transition pretty quickly from typing a boring essay to let's say WarCraft 3. Computers can emulate consoles as well as use their controllers with a little work. I have a usb adapter for my PC that lets me use my PS2 and N64 controllers on my computer. Duke Nukem MP kicks ass with a ps2 controller. I say that computer games nor console games are going away anytime soon. Well enough of my rant, time to play some games.
P.S. If you would like to use your console hardware on a computer, I suggest looking at "vg-network.com".
I would like to also note that the dreamcast has a lot of good emulators for it, I recommend checking out dcemulation.com for some great dc emulators and homebrew games.
Totally agree with you on both points, that the keyboard works marvelously in GTA3... of course, I've been following GTA since it first came out so I fell right into using the keyboard anyway... but I also agree that the hopping back and forth between not using the mouse and using hte mouse was really annoying. They should have made smooth keyboard-action for the user without using the mouse. Sure when you're trying to assassinate someone or traverse a mountain being able to look up/down is rather important, but why not let us handle ourselves without the mouse if all we're doing is hopping out and running to another car? sheesh.
There are several good reasons we should all hope that the PC architecture stays healthy for games (be in Windoze or Linux or Plan 9).
Others have mentioned the idea of consoles acquiring keyboards, mice, full internet connections, and monitor plugs. I would like to point out that this would be a nightmare for console developers! One of the really appealing things about developing for the Playstation (or ANY console, possibly excluding the X-Box) is the fact that there is no ambiguity of hardware. You don't have to code your game to care if user A has hardware T&L support, but user B only has Z-buffering. Then you'd have 2-button, 4-button, 6-button joysticks to map, does the user's monitor support 1280x1024x32, and is that at 70Hz or 85Hz?
Currently, a PS2 developer knows exactly what the hardware can do, and exactly what it will look like when running. His choices are... 50Hz PAL or 60Hz NTSC, Steering Wheel or no? Keyboard or no? That's about it.
Half the reason PC games are so buggy (besides having to run atop the Windoze OS) is the fact that they have to support so MANY different configurations of hardware. If I'm writing a game, I can assume you have a mouse... but not nescessarily a scroll wheel. I can assume you have at least 640x480x16-bit these days, but not that you can do full-screen anti-aliasing. I can assume you probably have sound, but maybe only 2-channel. So, I can either code for the lowest common denominator -- or I can put LOTS of cases in to ask if you have this, this, this, or this.
ANOTHER reason the PC's health is important to all of us here, is Linux. If the PC game market starts to dry up, so does the home sale market. Without home sales, PC's go from being cheap commodity hardware to being expensive business machines again. Now, linux starts to dry up too, since the supply of cheap computers to run it on goes away.
Not a pleasant prospect.
As much as I **HATE** PC hardware, I don't wish for it to go away. I hope (foolishly) that it might eventually mutate into something stable and logical... but until then, I'll always have one sitting under my desk -- wishing it was as cool as a Mac, or an Amiga.
110 million console games
+65.3 pc games
= 175 million total games
65.3 / 175 = 37.3 percent, unless you are retarded
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
The difference today is that we're seeing a convergence between consoles and personal computers. The consoles have always longed to have the flexibilty of PCs, while the PCs have always wanted the simplicity of consoles. So what has happened is that the console has become more like the computer and computers have become more like consoles.
The people saying that consoles are better are forgetting that they only just have what PC's have had for years. (Ethernet, hard drives, keyboards) Computers are getting what consoles have always had. (Decent controllers, stable development environments, sound)
We as game developers just sit back and laugh at this stuff. In fact, we think it's great. Within ten years, you won't be able to tell the difference between a console and a personal computer. The fact that consoles are now modular so that you can add a hard drive or a network module is just further proof. The closer consoles and PCs come together just helps to make our job easier when we have to port games to a console. Just look at the marketing Microsoft does to developers for the XBox. "Hey, you can develop for both the PC and the XBox at the same time!"
Many of you are also missing the fact that titles exclusively developed for a platform is just based on money. A platform will pay a developer X amount of dollars just to keep their titles on one platform for a certain length of time. I guess what I'm trying to say is, from a game developer's view, it really doesn't matter to us. It might be a Sony OS vs. Microsoft OS platform war in 2010, but either way convergence is upon us.
With a PC I get more! I am not losing out on anything. First off, there are free mods for games you have already bought:
Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Half-Life, Unreal, UT, Never Winter Nights, Starcraft, etc...
PC games give more than their console equivalents. I pay $30 for Quake, get a fun single-player game, great multiplayer deathmatch... and then the mods come. Capture the Flag, Team Fortress, Rocket Arena, QRally, Zerstorer, Quess, Rise of the Pheonix, Slide, and many more great free addons to my $30 Quake.
Finally, need I point out the free games that are great fun to play on your PC... yet cost money to play on your console:
Tetris, Nethack, FreeCiv, Bridge Builder, and many many more!
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
A half a million replies to this thread will get posted next time the EverQuest servers go down.
Can a moderator mark the whole article?
Gamepad (ForceFeedback included)
However, most PC gamepads suck donkey ricardo for any game involving fast twitch action such as a puzzle game, a side-view platform game, or a fighting game. They just don't have the same feel that Nintendo and Sony pads have. In fact, Microsoft's USB Sidewinder pads rotate the directional control 20 degrees clockwise, making it nearly impossible to move straight down without also moving to the right.
Those nifty uber-controllers with lots of extra buttons
That's called a keyboard ;-)
They're usually used with the non dominant hand and just have lots of buttons for adding to a flight game
Or for one handed typing...
Will I retire or break 10K?
I think that's the real question....I do find that madden plays so much better on PS2 then the PC...I also find that the RGP games that do come out for the console wouldn't have the same game play as it would on the PC. I like playing with a PS2 Stick, it fits better in my hands and the buttons are better placed for me...giving me a better game play ability. I don't mind playing games on my 35" TV, etiher, listing it over the surrond sound system...This gives me a better game play... But I don't believe I would have a better game play, playing Civ III on a console, the PC is much better in that game style...amoung others... I know that games will never go away from the PC, but I think they need to reach the same level of game play as a console...Make things simple...
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
Deus Ex is a detailed stategy FPS/RPG game, I love it. It also came with a great story too. Half-life also had a good story, but isn't so detailed. I'm not quite so sure (s)he's on about actual "detail" as more as structure to the game, like a plot. A good story makes a game addictive, good graphics just makes it pleasant to play.
it seems to me that things are actually moving the other way! Emulators are more popular now than ever and i would much rather play super nintendo games on my computer, save at any point i want and switch games withour restarting!
You report, Slashdot decides
Prevueing you're poast ownly hellps iff ewe no how two spel inn teh furst plase
But can an X-Box surf the web, chat on AIM
An Xbox can, illegally (in the USA, UK, and other countries with anti-circumvention law).
A PS2 can, legally, with the Linux kit, which includes a hard drive, a NIC, a preboot disc, and a Linux distro. Because you don't want to be interrupted with incoming messages or OS updates while you're playing a game, the PS2 dual-boots the "computer" operating system and the "game" operating system.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Poster F: Now you're redundant.
Poster E: No I'm not, you are, stupid-head.
Poster F: No you are, doodoo-face.
Poster G: You're both stupid. Bite me.
Now it is even more pointless.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Put a plasma monitor in front of that X-box or PS2 and it'll be a whole different world compared to that 640x480 60hz screen, especially since most flat lcd and plasma's support SVGA graphics with high resolutions. Granted this is a VERY expensive alternative right now, but in the future this will change. And as others have pointed out, X-box, ps2, etc. are just small PC's, are becoming less gaming platform and more of a specialized PC.
-s
There is not one person out there that uses a joystick/gamepad solely in a FPS game and can compete. Period. Mouse users have such fine control of up and down movement, and direction controls that they win hands down every time. Even if you had a mod to convert the PS2 controler over you would not get a person taht was as good, especially on the scale of maps made for games such as MOHAA, or Wolfenstien. Pretending you could have the resolution to see little people out very far (something not able on TV) you wouldnt have the fine motor control, even with a great analog stick to out aim a good mouse user. I have seen people try, and it simply does not work. about being able to use a keyboard, or fumbling around... thats simply not true, I play games such as Mechwarrior3, and Heavy Gear, they have 10 buttons/combination of buttons that need to be used at any oen time while piloting the mech. I can do this in my sleep, moving a mech around, swirving a torso, using the mouse to move the reticule, and the arrow keys to control the legs, while changing weapon groups, firing different types of weapons all smoothly in transition.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
There is hardly any point to building Mods now that PC games are so complex -- it requires nearly the resources of a movie studio to make a professional game nowadays.
Counter-Strike was created with a lot, and I mean a LOT, of help from Valve, and would be another forgotten Half-Life mod (as it was back in BETA3 or so) were it not for them!
Sure, you could hack together some cool Doom levels back in the day that could rival the professional work of a company, but nowadays we're flooded with lame projects that no longer matter compared to a real game, and at the most are just something to laugh at for 15 minutes at a small LAN party.
The only thing that keeps PC games afloat is piracy, and even that isn't worth the extra money just to afford a DECENT gaming rig.
The next generation Microsoft console will own the PC -- and at least then, we won't have any damned Tomshardware Wintendo nerds anymore!
There are console type games and PC type games.
No, there are three. There are PC type games, there are PlayStation(TM) console type games, and there are Nintendo(TM) console type games. (I find the Xbox mentality more similar to the PS2's than to the PC's or the GCN's.) I don't think you'll be seeing Mario or Zelda for PS2 or Xbox any time soon, or Final Fantasy [I..X] for GameCube.
Will I retire or break 10K?
But get this: if it had been a PC game Vice City would be a $20 expansion pack
There was an expansion pack for GTA for PS2. However, it bombed because people returned it because they didn't realize until too late that it required the first GTA.
Will I retire or break 10K?
While many people think that consoles "look so much better" than PC games and can "keep up with the technology" curve, and while their hardware is a known commodity that can be designed for appropriately, let us not forget that their output resolution is limited to NTSC/PAL and that the colour gamut is thus also very limited. Thus, they are not as much of a "technological marvel" as some would think...
When you look at the performance of PC video cards that are even several years old, they can still spit out, say 640x480x32 bit colour at similar frame rates "current" crop of consoles can deliver... and current PC video cards yield insane frame rates (basically unplayable, used only for (pointless) benchmarking comparisons) at this kind of resolution.
With the trend towards greater use of 3-D in most modern PC games, it is not uncommon to see the current crop of PC Video cards supporting high frame rates at 1280x1024x32 or even 1600x1200x32 (with antialiasing, anisotropic filtering and other effects enabled)...
Actually, Sony Online costs nothing. Just your standard internet connection;the network adapter itself is only 35 dollars.
My "standard Internet connection" is dial-up. Does Sony Online take dial-up? Or do I have to pack up and move to an area that offers affordable broadband Internet access?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Because then it would be too PC like, and would ruin the entire point of being a console. So everyone just sticks to playing on their PC for keyboardy games, while platformers stick to Consoles.
It isn't worth making a PC game if the console can do the job.
Yes it is. It's extremely difficult to get your game published on a console, unless you publish independently, which was possible on older consoles, nearly impossible on the current DVD consoles with all their DMCA protection and poop, but probably soon to become easy on the Game Boy Advance because that system has almost no protection at all. (The Game Boy and GBA have a trademark check, but that's legal to break under Sega v. Accolade.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
PS Incidently, if I no longer play games on it, the PC will continue to be "high end" - only the graphics card will change. For those doing more than office apps, there is still no such thing as "enough" computing power.
sic transit gloria mundi
you can get a cheap USB gamepad for the computer.
And it'll feel cheap. Better to get an N64 pad and an N64->USB adapter.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Really? Then what's this [copy of Star Fox Adventures] I have in my hand right now?
Games for the three DVD-based video game consoles are region coded. A game that's out in Japan may not be out in the United States or Europe. A game that's out in Japan and the United States may not be out in Europe. Some games never cross the pond(s) because of copyright licensing issues. Just because you hold a copy of a game in one hand and one-handed-type[1] in the other doesn't mean that anybody in any other country can.
Games for the Game Boy Advance handheld system, on the other hand, are completely not region coded.
[1] Judging by your other messages, Mr. Coward, you seem to have a lot of practice at one-handed typing.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Amazing how people get into these flame fests, but really what is the advantage of consoles? It would be nice if they could be more modular, allowing video, audio and speed upgrades. Sure would be nice to hook up to better displays (like monitors) and such. Hmmm, seems like they are becoming PC's then. No, what I think will work in the future will be a cheap but modular system that can play with PC's (not just with other like consoles) in lan/internet parties. This should be lightweight and very compact (and durable) so people can take it on the road. Otherwise we will just have pc's in a pretty box. If I want a pc I will use a pc, but a console should be cheaper and more transportable IMHO.
With a PS2 controller? Triangle,d-pad right or left,X,X,X
And while you're pressing the d-pad right or left, slowly turning, waiting for the integral to approach the target (turning in video games is based on integrating the vector produced by the directional pad or stick), your target has already moved the mouse toward you and shot you. And if you turn up your D-pad sensitivity, how are you supposed to aim your head shots without moving right past the target?
Will I retire or break 10K?
And I will also dispute that consoles have better controllers. Maybe for playing baseball or street fighter, but no console can touch the combination of a keyboard and mouse.
I will also dispute that a keyboard and mouse are better for everything. Try playing Zoop or Tetris Attack with a keyboard and mouse. Maybe for playing starcraft or quake, but very few PC controllers can touch Nintendo's and Sony's joypads for console-style games.
I think it's interesting that Linux is going to see a port of Unreal Tournament 2003 before Xbox and Playstation, why is that?
I think it's interesting that Game Boy Advance is going to see a port of Yoshi's Island before Windows and Linux, why is that? Where are the side-scrollers for the PC?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Until console gaming will allow me to play with 3 televisions simultaneously (ala my Matrox Parhelia setup) I will never change. It adds so much to the experience being able to see in a wide angle, there is no comparison.
Yeah.
That's it.
and, how long before keyboards and basic applications are available for such platforms? BTW, isn't the screen the weak link in this scenario?
Most of the time I just close my eyes and hit next a bunch.
And agree to restrictive EULAs that make you waive most of your "fair use" rights and related rights under copyright law. And then get taken to court for doing something you thought was permitted. Consoles don't have clickwrap EULAs.
Apples and Oranges. You don't have to modify your PC hardware configuration if you don't want to.
What if a game conflicts with the drivers that came pre-installed on the computer that you had just bought from Dell?
Configuration issues are a necessary side effect.
Necessary? There's a lot bigger chance of everything Just Working(tm) on Macintosh hardware.
You don't have to upgrade your PC
Wha? Most new PC games don't run on a 333 MHz Acer laptop with software 3D video. Lots of new games run on my 16.8 MHz Nintendo game console with software 3D video.
but you can't upgrade your console.
Wrong. The Nintendo 64 console had a RAM upgrade. The newer consoles have add-on modems and NICs.
Expensive, proprietary, incompatible controllers
Expensive? At least they don't feel cheap like some of the USB joypads I've seen. Proprietary? The specs for Nintendo Joybus have been published on the Internet. Incompatible? I found the "Nyko Play Cube" adapter that lets my PS2-owning buddies use their controllers on my GameCube system.
I have a 12 year old PC joystick that still works perfectly on my brand new pc.
New PCs no longer come with gameports; the only ways to hook up a controller are through the parallel port (with NTPad XP) or through the USB port. Microsoft's USB controllers feel like ass; because the pad is rotated clockwise 20 degrees, it's nearly impossible to press straight down.
When I play PC games with friends, I don't have to foot the bill for 3 extra controllers.
Yes you do. You have to foot the bill for three extra keyboards, mice, monitors, network cables, and computers, all with roughly the same video card so that nobody female dogs about an unfair disadvantage. (If you think that's silly, you could just have each player Bring Your Own Controller to a console party.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
Maybe I happen to like NWN? Even if it sometimes crashes. Little crashing is way better than no game at all.
You call a consistent crash within five to ten minutes after launch (as has been reported in other comments in this sid) "little crashing"?
You know there ain't no console version of NWN, do you? Nor BG2, or Torment, or Fallouts, or any good RTS, or... the list goes on.
You know there ain't no native PC version of SSB Melee, F-Zero, Dr. Mario, or any good platformer, or... the list goes on.
And all the other games I happen to like that are not available on crappy consoles and are never going to be.
And all the other games I happen to like that are not available on crappy Windows and are never going to be.
You and other console freaks can go play your brainless little console action if you want, but please don't try to claim that it's perfect for everyone.
Likewise, don't claim that Doom and Warcraft and derivatives thereof are perfect for everyone.
It has always been, and will always be _matter of taste_
Agreed 100 percent.
Will I retire or break 10K?
As far as I know, no one has yet figured out how to pirate the Cube. Perhaps you could have one of these merchants email me? :)
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Know what really pisses me off? More than anything. Microsoft bought Bungie just so they could pull the XBoX launch off better. Do you know how many people wouldn't've bought the XboX had Halo been available for the PC? A whole crapload, that's right. So they find a game that the internet is clamoring for, drop a blank cheque (practically) at the Creators of Pimps-at-Sea's steps and say, "Ours. Only available on Our Platform."
Until you can program for one API and have guaranteed reliabilty that device X supports feature Y then consoles will always rule.
I know that all modern PCs will support the most basic SDL and OpenGL functions. Thus, I can still make simple 2D PC games. However, I can't make games for the DVD consoles because the development licenses are too damn expensive for an individual to afford. (The GBA is wide open.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
I figured the lack of royalties to Microsoft would be incentive enough for the port, and the fact that an Xbox is really just a specific-purpose PC would make the port easy.
Except what if the "basic" contract for licensing an Xbox title requires a short non-compete period between an Xbox release and a PC release? It might not happen on the Xbox, but it might happen on the Ybox.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If PCs did lose out to consoles as the de-facto gaming platform, then that'd be one less barrier the average Joe would have to running Linux as their primary desktop OS. Aren't games still the number one reason people dual-boot?
Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
On PC, the only thing you have in your favor is the shareware effort.
The shareware effort is what started id Software.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Is it out *somewhere*? Then it's out.
Do you expect all game players to hop on an airplane to fly to the appropriate region every time they want to play a video game? Playing "video game creator for playstation" that way would be much more expensive than just writing a game from scratch on a PC. And no, you can't just import the games because in some countries, copyright owners have the exclusive right to import copies of their works.
Besides, it's a lot easier to learn C++ than it is to learn Japanese.
The original Starfox for the SNES was called "Starwing" in Europe due to the naming conflict.
Trademarks are easy to get around: just change "Star Fox 64" to "Lylat Wars" on the box and title screen. Copyrights, on the other hand... How are you supposed to release a Mickey Mouse game if you can't get permission from Disney in a particular market? Are you supposed to re-do all character models? Re-doing the music may not even be possible because you'll just land on another copyrighted melody.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You can always try this out, just get a Nintendo64, and rent Starcraft64, and you're off! I've heard that it's both really awful, and good for what it is.
I've seen screen shots with abominably low resolutions, having only 4 groups of 9 hot-keyed, instead of 9 groups of 12, and split screen two player mode. As a big fan of the original SC, I don't think I could deal. One of my friends who is also a big Starcraft fan said that in the N64 vs. you tend to abandon all micro and go for mid tech swarm tactics, since everything else is impossible to pull off with the analog control stick.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
I know, I know, VOIP sucks, but how long will that last in the face of broadband adaptors and stronger console computing platforms?
I have assumed in saying that that the only use of a keyboard on a console is text input, but I think that's a safe thing to say. If controllers need to be more complex to mimic the versatility of the keyboard, then clearly they will (and have) grow that way.
A major thing to consider is the setting. Your keyboard and mouse works great at your desk, but its awkward at best in your living room on the couch.
Again, something to mimic the abilities of communication (VOIP or similar) and precise selection (a gyroscope in the controller? I dunno) will certainly come to exist, I just think it will be different than a keyboard/mouse.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
No. See Looking Glass for an example. Killed thanks to Daikatana, that oh so successful FPS.
Noooo! Now the painful feelings of loss from the Thief games are flooding back to me. Why did you have to bring up those memories? WHY!?
In Soviet Russia, Beowulf cluster imagines you!
Regardless of how crappy I think my machine might be, it is all in how it's played.
That's no help when your only portable computer is a 333 MHz Pentium II laptop with software 3D. Virtually no new native PC games run on that.
Will I retire or break 10K?
how about £800 initially, and about £300, every 5 years after that?
What's the $480 for? A new processor, motherboard, RAM, video card, and hard drive (newer games' minimal installs are more bloated)? You think you can fit all that into $480? And it's more like every 3 years because Unreal Tournament 2003 is targeting a system that was state of the art 2 years ago, and that's the MINIMAL requirement, for 320x240 in 8-bit color.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I expect to see webcams at the rate we're going
Been there, done that.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Slashdot community aside, most folks don't want to swap PCs every year or two just to run the latest and greatest shooter. I think game developers have simply put the PC market down like a dog with their recommended and in some cases minimum requirements. There just are not enough people who are gonna get a bug up their ass to buy a $400 graphics board, 1GB of RAM, 2.x GHz processor, and $200 Windows upgrade.
About two years ago I bought a Voodoo3 card. It was old then. It is obsolete now. It still does its job. That $400 graphics board, obviously bought new, will last for years. Nobody needs the kind of power you're describing.
Compare this to new game consoles coming out every couple of years, and with the commendable exception of the Playstation and PS2, being incapable of running old games. NO LEGACY SUPPORT AT ALL! That's a hell of a deal all right.
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
I can download a GBA emulator and Yoshi's island if I so desired.
You can download a GBA emulator and buy a cart reader, but Yoshi's Island doesn't come out until tomorrow.
Tetris attack Zoop? I can buy a 12 dollar gravis gamepad that is almost exactly like the playstation controller, you know, with directional pads.
I own a Gravis GamePad Pro USB. It may look like a PSX pad, but it sure doesn't feel like one. Its directional control feels really cheap. The only way to play console-style games on a PC and have them feel right is to buy an authentic console controller and a console->USB adapter.
The point was that there are some games that don't work well with a keyboard, and that most of the joypads out for the PC just don't feel right for console games that are all timing and muscle memory.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So now all you dickless peecee users have is MS Office....hahaha spreadsheets, what fun.
I don't know anything about the gaming scene so feel free to edit me as nescessary. But I think they make more money selling to the console market first then the PC market. Everyone knows that PC games are way better than console games so why not release a great game to the console and make a killing off it. Then announce that you're going to release it to the PC platform and then make another killing off it because that great game you've been playing on the console is surely to be better on the PC.
The Sony network adapter does broadband and dialup, so yes, you can play games with dialup.
Now, all games don't support dialup (SOCOM), altough I've read people have gotten around this in some cases (causing headaches because of lag).
X-Box doesn't work with dialup.
- sigs are for wimps.
/me screams in annoyance
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I am primarily a strategy gamer. Sure, I play UT at nights to relax a bit, but my main diversions are Civilization II, Space Empires IV, The Operational Art of War...
These games need no acceleration, nor any really outstanding hardware. Hell, Civ2 can run on my old 75mhz box. These games are also noted, especially in the case of Civ2, for being mod-friendly. They came with good scenario editors and open formats so people could tweak to their heart's content. The makes of SE4 are continually releasing free updates that better the game. Civ2 has a vibrant online community some SEVEN years after it's initial release.
Can console games truly claim this sort of thing? I can't even imagine trying to play TOAW on a console...the horror...
So, please, try not to forget about us poor, abused strategy gamers.
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
regardless of whether you favor facts or emotional outbursts, logic and reason or irrational reactions, whether you like pc's, consoles, both or neither for games, or don't like games for that matter... I think it is easy to see how sites such as this are proving that there is a healthy market for PC games despite what any 2 bit (I have a degree so I must be good) marketer says.
Even if gross revenues for console games are lower, the higher margins can result in higher profits. I am unfamiliar with licensing costs for PC vs. console.
It costs more than an individual to afford to get official development hardware, and a new publisher already has to have several published video games on the market. (Unofficial development tools for the Game Boy Advance are available here.) It typically costs a publisher $10 a piece to have the console company make a cartridge and stuff it in a box, and that's only if the console company approves the title.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If you're not intelligent enough to click 4 times to install a PC game, then yeah, you had best stick with consoles.
At the beginning of most games' installers is a legal document that you must sign with a click of the Agree button in order for the installer to continue. This document is often well beyond the reading level of the average high school graduate.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If I remember right, that was one of the reasons nintendo lost the FF series.
Nintendo lost the Final Fantasy series because Square wanted a cartridge with more space than Nintendo would provide. Then Square went around to other publishers and explained the limitations of cartridge technology. In response, Nintendo suspended Square's license until a couple weeks before Hiroshi Yamauchi stepped down from the office of Nintendo's CEO.
FF Tactics (a less storage-intensive game than FF7) is coming soon to Game Boy Advance.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I primarily use a Mac, but even if my main machine was a Windows box, I still have better things to do with my computer than play the Doom/Quake knockoff of the week on it.
When I want to play games, I go downstairs and fire up one of my many 'classic' console systems-- you know, the ones that had games with so-so graphics but were original and a lot of fun? Today's games are all the same mindless, shoot-everything-that-moves claptrap. But hey, they look great and are enough to entertain kids who think The Osbournes is great TV, and in today's society, that's unfortunately all that matters.
But first, what's all this talk of what consoles 'will have'?
:p
The Dreamcast had a keyboard. A mouse. A modem by default, that you could swap out for a NIC. You could even get an adapter to hook it up to a computer monitor.
So, what's missing? The X-Box has a hard drive.
Consoles, simply put, are moving away from being consoles. They're becoming semi-specialized personal computers. (The Dreamcast came with a web browser!) Look at the fact that you could run Linux on the Dreamcast, and AFAIK, you can run it on the PS/2 and X-Box. (Or will be able to, soon.)
So are computers losing out for games? Not really. It's just the fact that consoles are evolving into actual computers. Disposable computers that you can't upgrade, but that works better for games, because no matter how many times you tell people, they'll always attempt to skimp and buy crap hardware for their boxxen.
I think many pc gamers are tired of the upgrades. I got an xbox with the dvd kit thrown in (rebate) for less than a new high end card. I bought a nice and tiny laptop for my development work, I don't need more than 1GHz to code, just ram. I have freedom to work anywhere I like. I will get xbox live ... who the heck has time to type in Quake III, xbox live will have voice. It has one nick, one password, etc. And at $50 a year, I can live with that.
Yes fps control is weird but with a level playing field, it is just something to get used to. No more contemplating who has an aiming bot/better card/better mouse etc.
So I am selling of the parts to my dual cpu beast, replacing it with mini itx based computer (www.mini-itx.com) for file serving etc. and when Quake III comes out, I will see if I will wait for the xbox version or pay up for a pc again.
My only wish is for a public xbox sdk for fun hacks, but I don't count on that any time soon.
Yeah, so you have better hardware on your PC than your console. Too bad you still don't have a game that fully takes advantage of 3d cards from a few years ago.
Doom 3 is proably the best game graphically you can get (or will be able to get). Want to know what hardware it is made for? It isn't your newest Geforce card... the engine was designed around the Geforce2. Or do you read the stuff Carmak puts out?
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Everyone knows its because Console games are more difficult to Pirate copy. I mean seriously, how many of you out there have ever bought a PC game? and the think of how many games had to pay for when the n64 came out.
more power to them, it gives a stable system, but if they start using the lousy console control setup by default, ala tomb raider, then GoodNIGHT. :(
Sooner or later the software is going to STOP just getting bigger, and get more efficient, we'll be able to use a VM of sometype and play cross platform, until then PC gamers are just gonna have to put up some $'s. I always pay for games, I even bought some Linux version of games I already had, not that it helped any
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
So when will we be able to combine the two platforms? Ever? The consoles are designed for overpriced closed-source plugin-cartridge games designed with expensive toolkits, which preserves the console company's market control, since they make money on the games, not the hardware. They usually don't have the resolution I'd want to read text at, because televisions are usually too grainy to be good monitors, but as resolution gets better and they get networking capability, I'd expect to see games like "X-Terminal" or "Tivo-Replacement" becoming available.... I'm not a gamer, but there are other uses for multimedia-heavy systems than running thumb candy, and it makes it easier to ooncentrate those things near the TV rather than adding lots of graphics boards to the machines in the Beowul\\\\\\ (sorry, can't say that word here) information-focused parts of the home network.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Wait a minute? You read the article? What are you doing here? By reading the article you have violated slashdot eticate (yeah, I know I mispelled etiquette, it's part of the protocal).
;-)
You're grounded. Please stay away for one entire week.
Vanguard
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
You can get a game PC that will beat any console for well under $1,000.
Not if I want to run Sunshine or Smash Bros. They don't even make a PC that will emulate a GameCube yet. Game Boy Advance, on the other hand... buy the cartridge from Toys Ya Us, put it in the cartridge drive made by Visoly, and emulate away, provided that you have the right joypad.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I know some people here get the latest and greatest games off Kazaa for free, but most people have to cough up the $50 each to buy the newest games on PCs.
The games cost that much on the consoles too. However, I can go down to Blockbuster and rent the newest game for a week for $6 to see if I like it or not. I've beaten some simpler games in two rentals ($12).
Over the summer, Blockbuster had a deal where you could have any two games out a time for a month for $25 (maybe $30). I tried out 12 games in a month for my PS2. I bought one of them and there are a couple more I may eventually bye. Others were fun and a couple sucked.
I still like PCs for games but found I've been spending more gaming time on my PS2 than PC lately.
Long live the 80's and early-90's consoles!
My own list: 2600, 5200, ColecoVision, Vectrex, NES, Genesis, 3DO, Saturn, and PlayStation, and a HUGE collection of games for each. I guess I should also mention my mint, full-size arcade cabinet games as well, Zookeeper and Arkanoid II.
And let's give props to the older computers, too... the C64 was an awesome game platform, and should almost count as a console system. I knew plenty of people who had them, and nobody ever did anything but play games on 'em (well, besides calling BBSes on their 300 baud modem to download cracked games).
I have no plans to buy any post-PlayStation consoles, because the games concentrate mostly on FMV glitz and not as much on gameplay. If any console game looks interesting to me (and those are few and far between), I'll pick it up when it comes out for the PC, and if it never does, oh well.
~Philly
it's called 'couch'
it may be a lot easier to get friends to join a game server over ICQ than to convince them to drive half way across town/state/country to play a few rounds of Super Smash Brothers (the best game ever made).
Did any PC game in the Street Fighter series support net play? Assuming that Super Smash Bros. 3 (rumored to introduce the Raccoon Powerup that gives you an extra couple little mid-air jumps) supports the network adapter, how are you going to play a game that depends on extremely precise (17-33 ms) timing over a link with a 150 millisecond (that's nine frames!) ping?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I play a lot of strategy games (something you won't find on a console)
Then what are Advance Wars and the forthcoming port of Final Fantasy Tactics to the Game Boy Advance?
Moreover, you don't have to upgrade to play ALL the latest new games, just the memory hogs.
The Game Boy has had only three major versions (1.0: game boy; 1.1: play it loud series; 1.5: gb pocket; 2.0: gb color; 3.0: gba), and all are at least 99.44 percent backward compatible. In addition, the GBA is essentially an open system, and even Nintendo uses GCC to develop for the system.
Will I retire or break 10K?
OK, Final Fantasy 10 1/2 is on the GameCube.
OK, now find Halo for GameCube. Bungie (the original developer of Halo) was primarily a Mac developer until Microsoft bought the company. The insides of the GameCube are similar to the insides of a G4 Cube (powerpc cpu, ati video). Yet Microsoft still ports only Office and IE to the Mac, not Halo.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Penny-Arcade has said all that needs to be said, as far as which platform "0wnz", and which is "pwned".
Seriously though, if you really consider yourself a dedicated gamer, you play both console and PC. Purists be damned, they're no better off for their irrational zealosy. Both platforms have great things to offer, and neither one is going away anytime soon. You would think people would take advantage of that awesome diversity and be grateful, instead of being such chattybitch llamas.
$450 for a top of the line video card that will be outdated in 6 months.
-OR-
$149 - $199 for a console that will last for another 3 or 4 years.
In the PC world, everyone typically plays on their own equipment. In the console world, the owner of the console usually ends up footing the $90 bill for 3 extra controllers.
What's cheaper: $500 for a TV plus a console plus three extra controllers (even less if you reuse the TV from your old NES), or $1500 for a PC plus twelve months of high-speed Internet access, provided that the family is lucky enough to live in a location where it is available?
The X-box is a dvd player but in order to unlock that functionality you need to buy their remote for an extra $30
No. The Xbox as shipped is not marketed as a "DVD player"; it's an "Xbox game console." For one thing, it doesn't have the "DVD Video" logo on the case. The DVD remote's receiver actually contains a ROM chip with the DVD decoder on it. Microsoft has to pay for the MPEG-2, AC-3, and CSS licensing somehow, no?
Even console games seem to be more expensive than PC games.
That's the cost of the console's operating system, rolled into the prices of the games. Distribute the price of Windows among the prices of all the games you buy for a PC, and it roughly evens out.
PS1 controller probably won't work with a PS2.
A Dual Shock controller for the PS1 works with a PS2, but some games require the analog buttons of the Dual Shock 2 controller. (I'm not sure whether or not all PS2 games require the Dual Shock 2 controller.) On the other hand, a PS2 controller does work with the GameCube through the "Nyko Play Cube" adapter.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Financially speaking it just makes more sense to develop games for consoles.
Not if you are an individual or a small company, and the console maker demands $$$$$$$, an NDA, a non-compete agreement, several published games, and a complete PC demo of your first title before it even gives you development hardware.
Will I retire or break 10K?
In other words, I feel they just wanted Rare (and Bungie for that matter) for the sake of owning Rare and preventing those popular franchises continuing to make mega$$$ for Nintendo.
Nintendo still owns the popular franchise and can have its "HAL" division develop them instead. The important things that Rare took with it are 1. banjo-kazooie, 2. conker, 3. perfect dark, and 4. the 3D model data for the characters in Donkey Kong.
I'm sure if Bungie had their way, HALO would be on every console available
Even the Game Boy Advance? Either they'd have to turn it into a side-scroller or they'd have to make it look like Doom 1 in 120x120 pixel "lo-detail" resolution at 15 frames per second.
Will I retire or break 10K?
My preferred genres are still firmly entrenched in the PC world. MMORPG, FPS, and Strategy.
MMORPG require a keyboard. Until consoles come with one standard, I refuse to play with someone who cannot talk to me except with emoticons selected from the gamepad, or typing at 5WPM on a screen keyboard.
FPS require a mouse. You can Halo me all you like, I refuse to play a first person shooter hampered by a joystick.
Strategy games require a keyboard, and lots of CPU power. AI is getting smarter on the computer, and the consoles are not keeping up with the CPU needs of todays strategy titles. In addition, I need the hotkey control and quick-selection a mouse allows me.
RPGs require more hard drive space than a console can afford. Try porting Morrowind to a console... it ain't happening. I like my RPGs rich, with tons of world to explore. However, I agree that Consoles can also create a good RPG... just not the same kind. I did like Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy 7. But I have a greater fondness for Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Morrowind, and Fallout.
You can keep your platform titles, your space thingies, your arcade shooters and race car games. Some of them I enjoy playing... but it is the PC games that keep and hold me for months and years, rather than a couple weeks.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
I remember I couldn't wait for Neverwinter Nights to finally be released for the PC after it came out for the XBox and PS2. I think they counted wrong...near as I can tell, great games are just starting to come out at the same time for BOTH consoles and PC's, whereas there used to be a massive lag between the two in favor of the PC.
Karma: Non-existant. Due mostly to the fact that you smell funny and nobody likes you.
Does anybody else think of Hyapatia Lee when he sees that name above?
The advanced consoles and internet pc games have virtually destroyed the once great arcade games. The last hurrah of Mortal Kombat games are long forgotten and now people just go to the few that remain for nostalgia purposes. There will always be the pinball freaks, but the days of these once great places of fun are long over.
The epicenter of electronic gaming has always been with the consoles. PC gamers have just been too shortsighted to realize that. Here's some responses to the standard PC gamer statements I've seen. The control's suck, I would hate to play genre X on a console: Then why do PC gamepads look suspiciously like dual shocks? Because gamepads are better general purpose gaming input devices. If a game is designed well it doesn't NEED a keyboard and as for mice, every console since the Genesis has had a mouse. As for the games themselves, most PC games ported to the consoles control pretty well, because they altered them to do so. For some of them you can even use a mouse if you want, though in many cases it really isn't necessary. Quake 2 was fine on the PSone as were the Command and Conquer's. Your console will be obsolete within a year: Sometimes it seems to me that PC gamers are more interested in the technology of games and bragging about frame rates and resolutions than actually playing the games. A console gamer can buy NEW games for his console on average for 5 years after it comes out. Can a PC gamer buy NEW games that will run on a 1997 PC? Will you be able to run DOOM III on a 1997 PC? I think not. Console games are too kiddy and aren't cerebral: Maybe the PC gamers who say this only notice the cutesy mascot games or something or haven't owned a console since the NES. There's plenty of cerebral games for consoles. Carnage Heart? Final Fantasy Tactics? Persona? Even chess. Besides the most popular genre of PC games is the FPS isn't it. It isn't like the old days of the 80's when half the PC gamers were bearded tabletop wargamers who wanted turn based wargames on hex maps and lots of dungeon crawling RPG's. You'll never play game X on a console: PC gamers who say this haven't learned from the past. This was said about the original DOOM, which was eventually released for the following consoles: Genesis 32X, SNES, PSone, Saturn, N64, Jaguar, 3D0, and recently for the GBA. This was also said about: Diablo, Warcraft, Starcraft, C&C, Quake, UT, Half life, Sim City, Civilization, MYST, Deus Ex, X-com, Hexen, Wing Commander and many others. You'll be able to play Everquest and the Sims on a console too, relatively soon. I can play online with a PC: I can play online with my console with a broadband connection. In fact I DO play online with my console. I can use my PC for things other than gaming, I can create web pages, read e-mail, browse the web, use AIM, etc: So can I, I do have Linux installed in my PS2. I can create Mod's for games and even design my own games. Why would you want to do game developers work for them? Wouldn't you rather want to PLAY games. I can understand this point if your goal is to become a game designer but otherwise. One CAN use the PS2 Linux kit to develop games. Games look like crap on TV's: That isn't the consoles fault, they have to cater to the lowest common denominator of displays. Though every console since the NES has supported outputs other than RF that give better displays. Consoles nowadays do support component output. Besides the most important thing about games is GAMEPLAY, not the resolution of the display. A good game is a good game whether it be 320x200 or 1900 by whatever. Maybe PC gamers are too picky, I've got X and KDE running at 640x448 and it's quite usable. Higher resolutions are better, but not something to be obsessed over. PC gamers need to stop worrying and love the console. It's the past, present and future of electronic gaming.
It isn't that windows couldn't do that - the problem is that the hardware platforms for gaming OS varies alot. Different chipsets, different display controllers, different game controllers - and drivers for all of these. Not to mention all those "handy" programs many people keep running even while playing. Stability problems are inevitable. This is one thing why consoles are a good - hardware stays the same. But rarely they pack the processing power, memory and needed interfaces for playing these magnificent simulations, and they can't be upgraded when a new powerful processor or some other component comes available.
Conclusion: long live PC as a gaming platform! (Hopefully the software platform will stabilize some day)
On their platform!
:P
Hahaha!
I suppose if it worked with x86 hardware, it would've come out on Linux?
Hahaha!
But thief III is in production...
No release date yet, but it is being produced by Warren Spector...
Make a google search for "Thief III".
This is a silly argument. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Consoles provide a static specification, PCs provide the latest and most diverse hardware.
That static point is an advantage because it's easy to program for, but gets real old real fast. The PC system means stuff stays current but a wider range of hardware to be supported.
Most of your arguments are bunk, but I can't be bothered going through them in point form, because there's a rather nice girl currently persuading me that there's more interesting things to... discuss.
Computer gamers (as opposed to console gamers) are not looking for the same kind of game, in the broad scale. The RTS genre, for example, just doesn't happen on console. Certain notable game series are primarily PC based, others are console based; the console gamers eagerly await the console games, the PC gamers eagerly await the PC games and those who like both have both systems.
Console gamers want a game they can just pick up and play, and are more willing to sacrifice depth for fun factor. PC gamers are more interested in games which have long lasting appeal, are comparatively deep and preferably are tweakable. How many console games let you edit your config like Half-Life does?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-09 -23&res=l
Both Myst and Myst 2 were ported to the PSone. Myst 3 just got ported to the PS2.
All I can say is "hurrah!" It is WAY past time that the appliances took over the computer game industry. My PC is a great (extremely) general purpose tool, and I'm always going to use it to "play" to a certain extent. But if I plop down $50+ for a game, it needs to be an order of magnitude more reliable than my PC needs to be.
Oh, and no, I have little desire to play Quake III arena in front of any screen. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good FPS now and then, but that's a candy-bar, not meat.
I can only hope that the PS2 and successors will get more of the types of games and peripherals that are currently only available on PCs.
This is a good trend, if it is true. Let the majority of games (AND game industry money, AND game industry marketroids, AND the game industry in general) move over to the console world.
Maybe then a developer or two will sit down and return to crafting games that require higher than a kindergarten education (Motor Reflexes - Very Good, Johnny!).
two words:
user-made mods
J
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
I like using a mouse for RTS games (real-time strategy games) like *arcraft/AOE/Black&White/etc. I've played plenty of games like this on consoles and using a thumbpad or thumbstick just doesn't move as freely or easily. Add to that the functionality of a FPS (first-person-shooter) with your left hand (if you're a rightie) working all of the options possible on a keyboard that even the newest controllers aren't able to configure...AND you can type out messages or use voice-chat progs...I think PCs will have a significant market space in gaming to come for some time yet.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Th... they... Miracles DO happen! Thank you AC! Thank you and all your spiffiness!
In Soviet Russia, Beowulf cluster imagines you!
Why are most of the posts about the price of video cards vs. whole consoles? Is there anyone reading slashdot who really doesn't know this? And I'm guessing 90% of /.ers who want to run UT2003 on their systems, can anyway. I know I can, although my gaming rig is over a year old, 1.4Ghz/512mb/Geforce3 runs it fine.
I know there's always a %age who like to complain that their 5 year old system with the power of my new cell phone should run Doom III fine, but that's like me asking why my ageing VW can't win Formula 1 races. Can we just mod them down, let us gamers subsidise the AMD & nVidia research labs, and kick our ps2s under the bed after 1/2 hr of mortal kombat to return to our gorgoeus UT2003, mmorpgs, q3 mods or whatever we play until the sun comes up...
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
Mad Doc Software is located in Lawrence, MA, not Beverly, as was stated in the article.
pc games are alot more fun!! they will never know..muhahhaa.
Joshu: What is the true Way?
Nansen: Every way is the true Way.
J: Can I study it?
N: The more you study, the further from the Way.
J: If I don't study it, how can I know it?
N: The Way does not belong to things seen: nor to things unseen.
It does not belong to things known: nor to things unknown. Do
not seek it, study it, or name it. To find yourself on it, open
yourself as wide as the sky.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...