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?
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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 will be on PC before any console. Nothing else matters.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
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?
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.
Here's Penny-Arcade's view on 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
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.
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
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
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
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...
* 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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
While true, how many games out right now take advantage of the GeForce4? Whereas every XBOX game can assume that the player has a set bit of hardware (roughly equiv. to a GF3), virtually all PC games out now only assume the player has at least a TNT2. A couple throw in some extra shader goodies if DO have a better card, but mostly this is just simple superficial effects. On the other hand, a year from now when GF4s are the low end and people are playing Doom3, PCs will have the obvious graphical advantage until the next batch of consoles come out..It goes like that in cycles.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
No. See Looking Glass for an example. Killed thanks to Daikatana, that oh so successful FPS.
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
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.
I don't see why it has to be one or the other? There are console type games and PC type games. For example, Mario, Street Fighter, Zelda are console type games that don't play well on a PC. FPS and RTS are generally better on PC. Personally, I like sitting on my couch playing a console game with a TV that is twice the size of my monitor and speakers many times larger and not wondering if I got the latest patch for the game because my hardware isn't the same as the stuff they tested it on. The argument of consoles being behind a PC is stupid. How much did you pay for the PC and how much is a console? A video card can cost 50% more than a console by itself! Use a console for what it does best and a PC for what it does best. It's like arguing that a dish washer is better than a clothes washer.
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
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.
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!
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.
But how many of the consoles could you buy for the price of that gamer's PC? Pretty well all of them and you would have the assurance that you'll be playing games without upgrades for at least three years after a console's launch and probably five.
It doesn't make economic sense to only play games on a PC. It hardly even makes economic sense to keep your work PC at a standard where you can keep playing current games on it.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
- 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]
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.
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
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]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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?
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?
That's because while Halo was an impressive FPS... for a *console*.
Compare it to a good PC FPS and it's not the second coming that XBox'ers made it out to be.
"It's extremely difficult to get your game published on a console, unless you publish independently..."
And it's easy for PC? You'd be lucky to break even! PC Games have a shelf life of roughly a month. Console games last for many months, if not years. Trust me, it's worth spending the extra $$$ to get your game published through a console. On PC, the only thing you have in your favor is the shareware effort. Unless, of course, you're affliated with a big publisher who will help you market your game.
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.
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?
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
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?
And....?
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."
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 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.
And........?
If I have to make conclusions based on what you have{n't} said, then your idea is at my mercy. Clear?
/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.
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?
> This argument popped up at several stages in the
:)
> days of the NES and Sega Master system.
No, it was the opposite argument - that these new "PC"s would kill off the console market. (Consoles, of course, existed before people got into home computers.)
Well guess what - Consoles have been around since the 1970s. It's 2002 and THEY'RE STILL HERE!
Long live consoles!
> PC games vary from RPGs all the way down to
> simple arcades type games, always have and
> always will.
Ironically, the variety argument is the one that's used (with some success - given that most of the Slashdot crowd thinks that FPSs are the end-all be-all of gaming) *against* PCs and *for* consoles.
-- Rick
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
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
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
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?
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.
Did any PC game in the Street Fighter series support net play?
Prob not. Frankly I never played it. It's not really the kind of game I would buy for a PC.
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,
Wow that would really rock.
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?
Well, my guess would be badly. Seriously though, there are lots of response sensitive games that work successfully online. High pings can be a real burden, but the games still make people happy. Also, if you have a good ISP, you can get pings much closer to 40-60 ms which is pretty damn good for most applications. That said, Smash Brothers wouldn't be the same without 3 friends, a couple couches, and a box of pizza. JIGGLYPUFF!!!
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