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."
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?
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.
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?
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
... 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.
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.
Once hard drives start coming standard on consoles don't be surprised if you start seeing game companies lower their quality standards on the initial game release. Now, they *have* to get it right the first time. What will happen when they get used to being able to patch their released games?
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.
First, consoles currently run in 640x480 (4x the resolution you quote), generally with antialiasing.
Secondly, go take a look at Star Fox Adventures for the GameCube. Tell me how many PC games look as good. I might be willing to give you Doom 3, but A) it's not out yet, and B) it requires a damn expensive machine to look that good.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
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.
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?
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!
The PC port of GTA3 uses the keyboard for driving?
What a joke.
I was wondering why so many PC-based reviews of that game were underenthused.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
Two years ago we had, what, the Dreamcast? Ubermega console built to last? No, it was a suckass piece of pixellated shit. Same with N64 and Playstation. Where are they? Sitting unused in your closet, I bet.
Consoles don't last any longer than PCs. If they did, you'd still be playing all the 'latest and greatest' games on a Playstation instead of an Xbox.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
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.
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.
I think all those available items will more than make up for the lack of only a controller to use. There are certain games that are much easier to play with a controller, so I went out and spent $20 (the average cost of any console controller) and use it. The good thing is, if I upgrade my video card to play those better games, I don't have to purchase a new controller.
find ~your -name '*base* | xargs chown
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.
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.
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!
Yes. And Postal 2. And Seadogs 2. Let's not forget Neverwinter Nights. Oh, and MS Combat Flight Sim 3.
Yummy.
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.
- 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
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.
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
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]
Yes, but modding a game is far simpler and yeilds results far superior than writing a game from scratch. It allows people to do much much more than they ever could in the past. That's his point.
The pros do more, the amatures do more, the users get more. It's good all around.
I'll tell you what's dead. Arcades. Brand new games look exactly the same as they did 15 years ago when they stopped development on the hardware and the gaming concepts. DDR is the single exception to that rule in the last decade. If you want to talk about something dying, talk about something that is REALLY dying!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
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.