Console Vs. PC MMORPG Argument Irrelevant?

Thanks to Gamebunny for their MMO game developers round-table, talking with some of the creators of games such as Anarchy Online and Rubies Of Eventide about subjects including the swift rise of the console MMORPG, which provides an interesting response from Daniel McMillan of Frontier 1859: "Any MMO developer would want to reach the largest potential audience. This whole console vs. PC thing is passe. If the consoles get large enough to hold MMO content - they will be more like PCs anyway." He continues: "If anything, I see bundled MMO service networks that are modeled like Direct TV - where you pay a monthly subscription and get at least 5 MMOs. In that case, it won't matter if you play them from a PDA or a console."

Comments

consoles

[Tirel]

are really limited by the lack of keyboard and mouse controllers.

Re:consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

which you can buy OPTIONALLY for consoles.. while you MUST buy them for pc.. many pc games suck because of poor joypad support.. i hate playing games that force me to learn more than 10+ keyboard combinations... that is the reason why most people like to game with a console instead with a overpriced pc that will be outdated the next month and with games that are in ALPHA/BETA/TESTING stage when they're released.

Re:consoles

[Chris_Jefferson]

I would say that console games are much better. The developer is working for one controller only, so can set up the controls to be much more usable. For example see Zelda: Wind Waker, where almost the entire game is played through 5 buttons.. I'm sure on the PC it would spread over half the keyboard!

Re:consoles

[wwvuillemot]

I have to concur that keyboard and mouse are critical for a certain type of MMO. Especially for MMORPG where there are people who actually RPG then I do not see consoles adding value or taking market share. The caveat being unless they become more like PCs -> add keyboard and mouse.

But my experience -- unfortunately -- playing ShadowBane was the lack of RPG elements. There have been other discussions about the RPG element of MMO going the way of the dinosaur as younger members play more for the action elemets than anything else. As such, the UI needed to support this type of gameplay does not require a kybd and mouse.

But as was also mentioned in /. recently, a lot of people see MMOs as a hang-out just as malls were in the 80s. And if so, then the argument for keyboard and mouse is again sustained. I do not see any way for consoles to surpass PCs for MMOs except as glorified Doom kill rooms. The social aspects, esp. RPG aspects, just cannot be sustained by console UIs. And if they can then they have obstensibly become PCs....

Re:consoles

[Ondo]

But as was also mentioned in /. recently, a lot of people see MMOs as a hang-out just as malls were in the 80s. And if so, then the argument for keyboard and mouse is again sustained.

Not even close. The Xbox and the PS2 both have headsets, which are better than a keyboard for chatting.

Re:consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

I have used the same computer for 2 years now, I have only upgraded the video card, and it is still working fine for every game out so far, so please, go fuck yourself.

Re:consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

In your opinion, maybe. I play counterstrike from time to time, I hate that they added microphone support to it, if you play on a good server, with good people, then yeah, it would be great, but since about 75% of the time I end up on a server with some whiny little asshole who won't seem to shut up for more than 2 seconds at a time, I hate it. Text is much easier to ignore.

Re:consoles

[xluserpetex]

is it really that hard to mute the whiny asshole?

Re:consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

no... fuck YOU...

Re:consoles

[Fred IV]

Good point, until you consider communication with other players. The five buttons may be a beautiful control scheme, having a quick conversation (beyond scripted common phrases) would be near-impossible without a keyboard. I remember trying to do this in PSO for the Dreamcast before breaking down and buying a keyboard to help me communicate.

Re:consoles

[Fred IV]

Not even close. The Xbox and the PS2 both have headsets, which are better than a keyboard for chatting.

For a small chat, maybe, but the voice model would be inefficient in the MMORPG where I play because of the number of chat channels I "listen to" at once. I typically have a server-wide-OOC channel, a buying/selling channel, and a looking for team channel open at the same time. I often have both vicinity chat and team chat running as well.

Possible with headsets? Maybe, but the sea of voices would be incomprehensible and the bandwidth of incoming voice might be a problem. Also, negotiating the price of an item is easier with text than voice due to misunderstood accents and slurred words.

Re:consoles

[uhhhhhhh]

I don't know how some of those people could play without a keyboard in that game. A friend and I would take turns playing our characters with one typing while the other drove. We were actually able to convince some people that there was only one person doing it all.

Re:consoles

[uhhhhhhh]

I hardly think that being forced to buy a keyboard when purchasing a computer is a bad thing. I still use a $4 keyboard I bought when I put my computer together about a year ago. Yes, that's right, four dollars. And I have used it almost every day from 4 to 16 hours each day. It works great and has the best feel I have ever experienced in a keyboard. I have even thought of tracking down a crate more of them for use when this one finally does wear out. I would love to see a study where the use of a keyboard was shown to increase productivity or ease of use in a game. And all those really hard keyboard combinations are what, the number keys?

Re:consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

i'll fuck both of you!

you're...uhh...sexy slashdot girls, right?

right...?

meep?!?

News Flash: Day Extended by 72 Hours

[Dachannien]

"If anything, I see bundled MMO service networks that are modeled like Direct TV - where you pay a monthly subscription and get at least 5 MMOs."

Evidently, Mr. McMillan is under the impression that each day contains 96 hours instead of the normal 24, because that is what would be required for anyone to balance successfully the play of five MMOGs.

Hardcore gamers will not be satisfied with the amount of advancement they will achieve if they split up their time among five different games (especially compared to their compatriots who focus exclusively on one game), and casual gamers will simply not have the time for more than one (not to mention five).

That sound?

[BMonger]

That sound is just millions of fanboys suddenly crying out in terror and suddenly being silenced.

A PDA? Did I read that correctly?

[Gothic_Walrus]

"In that case, it won't matter if you play them from a PDA or a console."

I could be wrong, but most PDAs that I've seen aren't capable of handling any kind of MMO game with any level of success. And in any case, the wireless Internet situation is too screwed up at the moment (multiple standards, uneven cover, huge fees at some access points...) to guarantee a connection to the servers these games require.

Re:News Flash: Day Extended by 72 Hours

[aliens]

No, I can definitely see his point. Some casual gamers play the game because they enjoy it no matter what level they're at. I was discussing this with a friend. He liked planetside and would have liked to have played Evercrack and SWG but wasn't going to pay monthly fees for all of them after the first month.

Some people just like a lil variety.

My anti console argument

[Kethinov]

These points were taken from my anti console rant. Note, when it was written console internet was still in its infancy. Some of the rant's points my be slightly obsolete, but the whole thing is still valid. Here's some highlights

consoles are, in the long run, more expensive than computers. In order to be able to play every single good console game in existence, you'd need to stick with the updates of two to four major makers. Buying that many consoles a year ultimately costs more money than buying a computer.

Computers are upgradable, consoles are not. Computers have internet connections extending replay value, console multiplayer capacity is limited to just a few people. And to top it all off, computers have many more games available to them. Furthermore, computer internet connections have nearly infinitely more uses than just gaming.

The rant goes on to explain that console makers should manufacture their own emulators/roms and sell them instead of proprietary hardware. It also explains how a company would in fact make more money off of that business model. Note: even though console internet has been more successful, it's still not cheaper than buying a computer, and computers have more uses anyway. If console makers did start making their own emulators/roms...

As a result of this, people who only bought consoles to play the latest and greatest games now begin buying computers, further standardizing their use, and computer users who never bought the uber expensive consoles are now buying console games for their computers. The companies now have a larger customer base with an ultimately better product.

Re:My anti console argument

[Ondo]

Your rant is wrong all over, but fundamentally falls apart on one point.

Emulators are slower than native code. By a lot. There isn't a PC available that can emulate the PS2, GameCube, or Xbox. (Yes, the Xbox has a mostly PC architecture. Still can't emulate it because the graphics card and the main system use the same RAM, unlike PCs.)

To quote from the article:

people would begin to realize that all consoles are are dumbed down computers that have to be replaced every six months.

If you tried to write an emulator, you'd realize that consoles are custom-engineered cutting-edge hardware specifically designed to run games, and that a general-purpose computer with roughly equivalent functionality is going to cost far more, and that an emulator requires not just roughly equivalent functionality, but far superior functionality.

(Incidentally, consoles get updated roughly every five years, not every six months.)

Re:My anti console argument

[Kethinov]

Emulators are slower than native code ... If you tried to write an emulator, you'd realize that consoles are custom-engineered cutting-edge hardware specifically designed to run games, and that a general-purpose computer with roughly equivalent functionality is going to cost far more, and that an emulator requires not just roughly equivalent functionality, but far superior functionality.

Incorrect. Emulator authors spend endless hours reverse engineering the original consoles in order to write the closest match they possibly can. Emulators work by emulating hardware conditions. People assume emulators are always slower when that is not true. Current emualtors are only slower and require better hardware than the actual console because emulators also have to run on top of an existing OS; as well as run while other programs are running.

Consider a Gamecube "emulator" written by Nintendo. Since the operating system on a console is (usually) just the "emulator" (or better termed "the game OS"), consoles don't have to deal with all the extra overhead Windows/Linux/whatever generates while it's running a game. If Nintendo wrote their own emulator, or simply ported their GC bios/os to the PC, you wouldn't be running it in Windows/Linux/whatever. God no. You'd boot THAT os then play your games. (Although I'm sure an OS port would be available for those of us (like me) who have amazingly overkill hardware.)

Re:My anti console argument

[Ondo]

Current emualtors are only slower and require better hardware than the actual console because emulators also have to run on top of an existing OS; as well as run while other programs are running.

This is totally false. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You can't have one set of hardware behave identically to another incompatible set of hardware without extra code that takes extra time to execute.

To quote from your rant again:

Now, can someone tell me why it seems like I'm the only one who's thought of this?

You're not, your just the only one sufficiently crazy and ignorant to think it would work.

Re:My anti console argument

[Kethinov]

Think outside the box for once in your life! Let me make it more clear.

Let's say a Nintendo 64 is running a 400mhz processor with a GeForce 2 equivelent.

There's no reason why a 1ghz processor GeForce 4 computer couldn't compile and run the Nintendo 64 bios/OS

It's just software!

Re:My anti console argument

[Ondo]

Think outside the box for once in your life! Let me make it more clear.

Recognize reality.

Let's say a Nintendo 64 is running a 400mhz processor with a GeForce 2 equivelent.

There's no reason why a 1ghz processor GeForce 4 computer couldn't compile and run the Nintendo 64 bios/OS

There are far, far more differences between the N64 and a PC then there are between different generations of PC. Even an Xbox, which is the closest console to a PC, shares memory between the graphics card and the CPU, which lets it do things far faster then a PC which would have to send the data from one set of RAM to the other.

It's just software!

No it's not. It's software and hardware working in combination. Yes, anything that runs on a GameCube could be run on a PC, but performance would suffer a great deal, which isn't acceptable.

Re:My anti console argument

[Kethinov]

The performance wouldn't suffer if the software was written properly. The graphics in Halo, Metroid Prime, and Final Fantasy X are not things that couldn't be done on a PC, and they're some of the most graphics intensive console games there are. The only point I'm trying to prove here is that in the long run for the consumer and the makers, it's be better to drop consoles altogether and use computers. With the ever decreasing price of hardware that one would need to run these kinds of games, this idea becomes ever more practical.

Re:My anti console argument

[Ondo]

The performance wouldn't suffer if the software was written properly.

That's not emulation. It has nothing to do with emulation. That's writing the software for a different platform. As for why they shouldn't do this, I'll just quote your rant:

The most common argument against this that development time for games would increase tenfold. After all, consoles are manufactured with very specific hardware and the game programmers only have to write their games for that hardware. Convenient setup, makes game programming easy.

There are many other reasons for this as well.

The only point I'm trying to prove here is that in the long run for the consumer and the makers, it's be better to drop consoles altogether and use computers.

And I'm disproving most of your points, because you don't know what you're talking about.

With the ever decreasing price of hardware that one would need to run these kinds of games, this idea becomes ever more practical.

Console hardware isn't becoming cheaper, it's becoming better.

Re:My anti console argument

[Kethinov]

That's not emulation. It has nothing to do with emulation.

Duh? But there's no other term for it at the moment so that's what I use. The only way you're going to run a "console" game on a computer is through emulation. If Nintendo made their own "emulators" for the PC which would be nothing but a port of their console OS, then it would work just fine.

I'm disproving most of your points ... Console hardware isn't becoming cheaper, it's becoming better.

I didn't say console hardware, I said hardware. And as better hardware comes out, older hardware gets cheaper. Meaning good hardware is becoming cheaper. And you're not disproving anything. You're engaging me in a pissing contest. You struggle so much to argue with common sence that you actually say nothing at all.

Re:My anti console argument

[Ondo]

Duh? But there's no other term for it at the moment so that's what I use.

It's called "porting". You know this, as you use the word later on in the same sentence. In your rant, you used an actual emulator as an example of why this would be of benefit, so you clearly were talking about emulation. You're pretending Nintendo can get the benefits of porting (decent performance) and emulation (simplicity) at the same time. They can't.

I didn't say console hardware, I said hardware. And as better hardware comes out, older hardware gets cheaper. Meaning good hardware is becoming cheaper.

No, "good" is being redefined to be better than it used to be. Good hardware today is a lot better than good hardware five years ago, but it's not cheaper. The fact that good hardware from five years ago is now cheaper is why computers can emulate old consoles, but it doesn't help them at all with emulating new ones, which is what you claimed would become more practical as hardware got cheaper.

Re:My anti console argument

[Kethinov]

Your argument is not invalid, but neither is mine. No one is saying that console OS "porting" (as we shall now deem it :) is easy, but with effort and care and can be done smoothly. And I'll go as far as saying that one day there will be no consoles, other than handhelds. Everything (desktop) computer related whether it be gaming, or slashdotting, will be done under one hardware medium. Call me a visionary, call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

Re:My anti console argument

[Lightwarrior]

Ondo, part of the fallacy of your argument is that you assume these consoles are somehow written/built in such a way that makes its games imposible to emulate - or, rather, not possible to emulate as effectively.

The accomplishments of consoles are not impressive in any way compared with the PC. Take a look at what they do - they render an image to a television screen, at resolutions as low as 320x240. The XBox has 2xAA, maybe some of the others have similar features.

I run games on my P4 3ghz + Radeon 9800 512 in 1600x1200x32 with 4xAA and 16xAF. I routinely get >50 fps in every game I've played with these settings.

Take the popular PS2 game GTA:VC. It's rendered at 320x240 (correct me if I'm wrong here), and let's say it has 2xAA (/shrug). Compare it to the PC version on my comp: 1600x1200x32, 4xAA, 16xAF, >50fps in even the most intensive areas.

Unless you're telling me that something revolutionary happened when GTA:VC was ported to the PC, this leads me to believe that other console games can be ported as effictively, with a similar jump in image quality. Hardware power is not a limiting factor - quite the opposite, as this proves.

I can only see a couple reasons we don't see games cross-released for all platforms (PC, Mac, Linux / PS2, GC, Xbox) - #1, licensing agreements. Stupid, IMHO, because Game Publisher A reaches a much larger audience by releasing a game for *every* system instead of just one - though this is probably brought about by Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo saying "you can't release this game for our system unless it's *only* for our system", or Microsoft's strong-arm tactics with games like Halo and KotOR.

#2, incompatible hardware across every platform - requiring either a hardware abstraction layer over the guts of the game (I'm not talking D3D HAL here, but it's done every so often - Savage will see a PC/Linux debut, Terminus had a relase for all three simultaneously, Soul Calibur 2 will see a release for the three consoles later this month), or whatever.

Porting back and forth is possible, though we see most Console -> PC ports from the PS2 (GTA, GTA:VC, Silent Hill 2) and most PC -> Console ports to the X-Box (Ghost Recon, Island Thunder). My theory for PS2 -> PC here is due to the game's popularity (on the popular PS2 makes for quite a blockbuster), and for PC -> X-Box is likely compatability.

So, if it can be done with some games, why not all games? It's certainly not hardware limitations on the PC's part. It's probably because it costs money to port games (new hardware layer required), and it's only "worth it" to the publishers of certain wildly popular games - or because one console has it easier than others.

-lw

Re:My anti console argument

[Ondo]

Ondo, part of the fallacy of your argument is that you assume these consoles are somehow written/built in such a way that makes its games imposible to emulate - or, rather, not possible to emulate as effectively.

They are. Emulation != porting. If you could pop your PS2 GTA:VC disc in your computer and use it to play the game, that would be emulation. No effort required by the game publisher, and totally impossible right now.

Re:My anti console argument

[Lightwarrior]

"No effort required by the game publisher, and totally impossible right now."
Then ask the question, why is it impossible? Is it because the console manufacturers aren't interested in seeing their "console specifc" games played on another system? They shut down anyone who tries.

The PC has superior hardware available. We're not talking about attemping to run UT2k3 on an Apple IIe.

Effort is being expended by the publisher (console manufacturer), explicitly trying to prevent this. It's counterintuitive. They'd reach a much larger audience by embracing emulation. Larger audience == more money.

It's not impossible to emulate these systems - the only reason we can't do it right now is the the omnipresent threat of the DMCA.

Regardless, we wouldn't want to emulate those systems anyway. A combination emulatot/translator would be much more efficient - console hardware not being as demanding and all.

-lw

Re:My anti console argument

[brkello]

It's not impossible to emulate these systems - the only reason we can't do it right now is the the omnipresent threat of the DMCA.

Don't argue with Ondo...he is absolutely right. We have emulators for game boys, nintendos, etc, so your DMCA argument is BS. The reason why they can't emulate it was made more than clean in all of Ondo's posts. They are designed spefically for games and are able to run them faster and better than a superior PC could EMULATE them. Current PCs are probably not fast enough to emulate a PS2. If anyone was able to do it, THEY WOULD. They aren't shutting down anything. A lot of people out there will write emulators for free because they like the challenge, and thrying to shut that down is like shutting down people sharing MP3s. Once its on the web for awhile, everyone can/will get it.

Re:My anti console argument

[Lightwarrior]

"Don't argue with Ondo...he is absolutely right."
So... I should just take your word for it and shut up? Naw, don't think so. It doesn't make sense to me.

Take a look at this 3 year old article detailing the specs of a PS2:

http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/ps2/ps2vspc- 1. html

Take a good, hard look at those 3 year old numbers. Now compare those with current specs (yeah, I'm in a rush, so I don't have those links yet). That comparison was with a P3 (550?) and TNT2 Ultra. In my rig, I have a 3ghz P4 and a Radeon 9800 w/ 512mb vid mem.

Tell me again why you think the now-paltry specs of the PS2 are preventative? And what level of emulation are we talking about? 100% software? Emulators are only as good as they're written - if they're not trying to take advantage of *ANY* of the power available to the PC (P4 instructions, Dx9/video card hardware, etc) - you're gimping the contest before it ever started.

When were those Game Boy, NES, and SNES emulators written? I'll give you a hint: it was before the DMCA.

-lw

Re:My anti console argument

[brkello]

Well, you could write your emulator for the PS2 and prove me wrong...but I doubt that will happen. The stuff you are saying makes a lot less sense than Ondo. You are looking at the specs, not how the hardware is integrated. Specialized tools will always be better than multi-purpose tools for the one thing they are built for. I work with super computers. They are great for running weapons simulations, because that is what they are designed for. You would be pretty disappointed with how it performed with Quake 3. If we were to build a multi-purpose super computer that could run anything (just think of a much much faster PC)and tried to run weapons simulations on it, it would absolutely suck compared to the specialized machine. Even if the multi-purpose machine had 10 (or more) extra t-flops to throw at the problem. The same thing is true with gaming consoles, they are not designed to be general purpose, so their architecture can take advantage of that to play games faster and better than your system. There is more to a system than a CPU, memory, and vid card.

And about the DMCA stuff...if it wasn't illegal before, it is now. Do a google and try to download an emulator. If you can't find any emulator in 3 minutes, you have some serious problems. Why aren't they all shut down?

I am not saying computers suck and consoles rule. I am just saying that there is a reason that they exist and emulating them is far more difficult than you think.

Re:My anti console argument

[pixel_bc]

> Take the popular PS2 game GTA:VC.
> It's rendered at 320x240 (correct me if
> I'm wrong here

You are -- it's rendered in 640x448.

Re:My anti console argument

[Lightwarrior]

"You are looking at the specs, not how the hardware is integrated."
The systems specifications tell me how the hardware is integrated.

The PS2's layout is significantly different from the PC of 2000 (not that has changed a whole lot, but bear with me). Instead of having a large on-chip cache, it has a 10-channel Direct Memory Access Controller (DMAC) that quickly access the PS2's two 128MB RDRAM main memory banks with its "high speed" (quotes because I don't have a number for this) 16-bit bus.

The PS2 also has two 128-bit SIMD floating-point vector units, as well as its MIPS III CPU core (which can do 128-bit integer SIMD by locking together its two 64-bit integer pipes). These three processors (as well as the display mechanism) are conected to the core memory (256MB RDRAM) via the aforementioned 10-channel DMAC.

This breaks down to a system that, while extremely light on cache, has the memory bandwidth and processor power to significantly outperform the Pentium 3s/TNT2 Ultras the PC was using at the time.

PCs aren't set up that way. It has a smaller pipe between the CPU, RAM, and Video Card - but it tries to make up for it with a larger on-chip cache (for the CPU), decreasing memory access times while increasing memory bandwidth (RAM), and significantly more powerful video cards (along with significantly faster memory bandwidth from the RAM to the video card [AGP 2/4/8x]).

A lot has changed in three years. Unfortunately, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the PS2 to the modern PC, because I don't have a lot of the gut speed information about the PS2 (just architecture). I can't even give you a fairly accurate rough estimate, because I can't find a common benchmark between the two.

Things have changed so much, they aren't even measured in the same way.

"You would be pretty disappointed with how it performed with Quake 3."
Quake 3 isn't used as a benchmark anymore. Most fairly cheap, off-the-shelf cards do pretty well (if not extremely well) with it now. A GeForceFX 5200 (less than $100) gets better than 33fps in 1280x1024 with 4xAA.

And that's exactly my point. Budget cards render better than the PS2 does.

I understand that the PS2 has specialized hardware. I understand that the PS2's software is going to be optimized for this specialized hardware, and that because of this, won't perform as well as software optimized for the PC.

However, when you use the phrase "...play games faster and better than your system", you've got to realize that this is just not true. The PS2 renders graphics at 320x240 - 640x480 for high quality TVs. A moderately priced PC (with a 'budget' video card) today can achievable playable framerates at more than twice the resolution, with at least twice the anti-aliasing.

Performance PCs just blow the PS2's image quality and performance out of the water. There's no contest. But we're also talking about a comparison between current technology and three-year-old technology.

As for the DMCA, consider which is harder - to stop a large group of people from using something that already exists (and that is widely available), or to stop a small group of people from creating something that doesn't exist?

It's easier to stop developers writing emulators (in most countries) now. It would be virtually impossible to wipe out every trace of already existing, wide-spread emulators - emulators for systems that aren't even in production anymore (ie, the companies aren't making a profit off them, so why should they care as much?).

I think the biggest problem with emulating a PS2/GC is that a straight emulation wouldn't be the ideal solution - you'd get crappy image quality. No one on the PC wants 320x240 or even 640x480 resolution, we want high image quality (1600x1200, etc). So you'd basically need a system that can translate the PS2-optimized instructions to PC-usable format (OpenGL or D3D for display, and that's just the rendering part of the problem).

I also do

I'd argue against this

[swat_r2]

but there are so many weak points that are made in your rant, to be honest it just seems like you've been burned (kind of like a guy who just got dumped by a hot girl).

Not a flame by any means, I used to be a die hard PC freak like yourself - I spent a few thousand a year to play the latest and best games, a completely vicious hardware cycle. It became way to expensive, simply put. I was ignorant of consoles at the time and I missed out on a lot of great games because I was a PC snob.

I have a pretty nice PC gaming setup now, I play the occasional FPS online - but the amount of creativity that goes into some console games is awesome, and if you have friends come over, a MP console game can't be beat.

I love both platforms for their own reasons, but unfortunately one of them is a spoiled rich bitch who is high maintenance and rarely puts out ;)

Re:I'd argue against this

[Kethinov]

Actually it's just the opposite. After years of buying the latest console and wasting too much money, I realized how much cheaper and more fun PCs are. If console makers made all their games for the PC through the forum of emulation and roms, then the PC would be the gaming holy grail.

Re:I'd argue against this

[knubo]

Where I live (Norway) the price of a desent playable PC is approx 10k NOK (~ $1000). As I buy this PC, I spend lots of time getting the latest drivers for all my "things" in my PC (if it at all work), and then I spend more time tuning everything. (I hate that). And after 4 years I must spend at least that amount, as my PC has become obsolete for new games. I've tried that and I'm fed up with it...

Compare that to a game console. I paid 2500 NOK for it (I bought it early, now it is more like 1400 NOK with games). It's way cheaper than the PC I refer to. Sure it runs on somewhat lower resolution and PC games might be superior now, but it's 1/4 the price, and the quality of the games are normally better - you can't have patch hell like on PC.

And the games I buy anyways - I honor the peoples work and wouldn't do otherwise, so there isn't any money to save there either.

Call me lazy or crazy, but I prefer my PS2 to any PC for gaming.

KEB

Re:I'd argue against this

[Kethinov]

Call me lazy or crazy, but I prefer my PS2 to any PC for gaming.

Sure, that's fine if you're going to play PS2 games only. But what if you want to play Windwaker, Metroid Prime, or Smash Brothers Melee? Now you've gotta buy a GameCube. More money spent. What if you want to play Halo on the XBox? Gotta buy an XBox. What if you want to play a sonic the hedgehog game? Gotta buy a Sega model. What if you want to play Goldeneye 007? Gotta buy an N64. What if you want to play The Legend of Zelda: A Link To The Past? Gotta buy an SNES... see where I'm going?

Add up the cost of all of these things and you're way over the cost of a computer. If game makers sold emulators and roms then you wouldn't have to pay for all this console hardware. And, as I said before, game makers would have a larger customer base with an ultimately better product.

Re:I'd argue against this

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, people seem to be ignoring 1 important fact; You don't have to buy an entire new computer to play new games. When I upgrade the rest of my computer, it will have been ~3 years since I got it, and will amount to about $200 a year spent upgrading it. Significantly less than most people say it is, plus, you have to factor in that most people would have a computer ANYWAYS, and you can do alot more with a computer than you can with a console.

Re:I'd argue against this

[Golias]

When I upgrade the rest of my computer, it will have been ~3 years since I got it, and will amount to about $200 a year spent upgrading it.

$200 a year? My X-Box was $300 to buy over a year ago, and I plan on keeping it, as it is, for at least another year, if not longer, before turning it onto a spare Linux server. That's 3 years of game use with $0 per year spent on hardware upgrades, for a game system that cost far less than your PC.

As for the people saying "what if you want to play a PS2 game or a Nintendo game? You gotta buy more consoles"... That's utter nonsense. Sure, I can't play GTA3 on my X-Box, but you can't play DOA3 on your PC either. PC, PS2, X-Box, GC... no matter which way you go, there's going to be some games you can't play. Of all the current game consoles, the X-Box probably has the smallest selection of games, but it's still far more games than I'm ever actually going to own. I've got 9 games at the moment, with 3 more I'll be buying in the next few months (Knights of the Old Republic, Soul Calibur 2, and one of the many football sims). Those will occupy my free time plenty enough that I have no need to play the whateverthehell the latest Mario game for GC or GTA spin-off that's coming out on other platforms.

Still MMORPG's are not likely to ever catch on for the X-Box, not just because of the lack of keyboard, but for this simple reason: $$ per month for broadband + $$ per month for "X-Box Live" (currently $50 for a year, but who knows what the monthly fee will end up being?) + $$ per month for Varient or whoever is putting the game out... Who the hell is going to pay all that?

Re:I'd argue against this

[Lightwarrior]

You paid for an X-Box? Sucker. My wife won one at a gaming competition.

It's a good thing, too, because the X-Box has proved nearly worthless compared to the gaming I've gotten out of my PC - or, hell, my *SNES*.

I own 6 X-Box games (Halo - which was free with the 'box - PGR, DoA3, BtVS, BG:DA, KotOR). I've rented maybe 5 others. I'm pretty sure that I've gotten more play hours out of KotOR (60+; 40ish the first time 25ish the second) than all the others combined.

Compare that with my PC - I'm a hardcore PC gamer. I probably play 40+ hours a week - a *MUCH* better $/play time ratio.

-lw

Re:I'd argue against this

[Golias]

Most of us have better things to do with our lives that play video games for 40+ hours a week.

Those of us who do not completely neglect our jobs, families, and personal hygiene will probably not play 40 hours in a month, let a lone in a week. For us, having the X-Box is nice for when you have company over. DOA3 or Madden Football is a pleasant alternative to darts or poker for me and my drinking buddies.

If you would rather fire up the PC and spend hours and hours playing EQ (or "DivorceQuest" as it is known among our circle of friends), you just go right ahead.

I had a game PC up until recently... It was getting used for NWN about once every two months. I've wiped the drive and turned it into a Linux server, and have no intention of replacing it anytime soon.

Re:I'd argue against this

[Lightwarrior]

It's amazing how quickly the discussion of PC vs. Console degenerates into personal attacks.

So you do other things that fill your time rather than gaming. Big deal. How is what you do in your spare time "better" than gaming? Should I take up your hobbies just because you find them more fulfilling? Like the consumption of alcohol, I suppose.

As hard as it is for you to believe, gamers aren't the jobless, unwashed loners you make us out to be. I've got a full time job (that pays quite well - thanks to my interest in computers), a loving wife, two sets of parents that I see every couple of weeks, and compulsively wash my hands. /shrug, we've all got our faults. Some people are judgemental and intolerant.

I fire up my PC as more than just a pleasant alternative to darts or poker for me, my wife, and my friends (with whom I don't consume copious quantities of alcohol) - I engage in various challenging activities, by myself or with others, in co-operative and competetive environments.

My wife and I played EQ together for years, until we moved on to different games. I think you'll find that more marriages are ruined by alcoholism than the inability to communicate associted with divorces over a video game.

Though it may fall on deaf ears, I'd suggest you consider the hubris it takes to judge another person you know nearly nothing about - "better things", indeed.

-lw

Re:I'd argue against this

[Golias]

For somebody who abhors personal attacks (especially without knowing another person well enough) so much, you are very quick to accuse me of being an alcoholic. Please take a look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers. Also, lighten up. Re-read my post and realize that the general tone of my remarks were intended to be light-hearted.

If you like to sit in front of a game PC monitor for 40 hours a week (in addition to whatever time you spend staring at a screen for your job), and I would prefer to socialize over a beer with friends, why can't you accept that some people would rather spend their time differently that you do?

For me, the X-Box is a tremendously good value for the money. $300 (which, for the record, I didn't spend myself... several of my friends pitched in and bought me one for my birthday) buys me a game console which provides all the electronic gaming entertainment I really need at the moment. Spending $1000 on a game PC, plus the frequent upgrades needed to keep up with the latest game requirements, just doesn't make sense for some of us. The post I originally replied to was claiming that PC's are the more economical route to take, and I was simply pointing out that this is nonsense: it costs more. A lot more. Sure, you have many more options for ways to fill your time as a PC gamer, but you pay a lot for that privilege.

Re:I'd argue against this

[Golias]

It's amazing how quickly the discussion of PC vs. Console degenerates into personal attacks.

Actually, it's astonishing how quickly it happens. I just re-read the thread, and it turns out the very first thing you did in this "discussion" was call me a "sucker" for buying an X-Box.

So pardon me while I once again stoop to your level and tell you to go fuck yourself.

Re:I'd argue against this

[Lightwarrior]

I'd like to point out that I didn't call you an alcoholic, only that some people would consider the damaging of one's own liver as a less-fulfilling way to spend time than gaming.

Consoles are cheaper, and more cost-effective for the casual gamer. But I spend a lot more time gaming than the casual gamer. The ratio of time spent playing to cost is probably better for me than it is for the casual console gamer.

Regardless, you're arguing the same point I am ("some people would rather spend their time differently that you").

-lw

Re:News Flash: Day Extended by 72 Hours

[Ondo]

"If anything, I see bundled MMO service networks that are modeled like Direct TV - where you pay a monthly subscription and get at least 5 MMOs."

Evidently, Mr. McMillan is under the impression that each day contains 96 hours instead of the normal 24, because that is what would be required for anyone to balance successfully the play of five MMOGs.

As opposed to all those people who successfully balance watching every channel on Direct TV in just 24 hours a day.

The fact that people can't play all of them is part of what could make it possible to offer multiple ones for one low price. You may get far more subscribers, but each one only uses up about as many resources as a subscriber to an individual game would, so the price could be roughly the same as the price for an individual game.

Patches?

[Stubtify]

I'm not the first to say this, but consoles need a serious way to deliver patches. This most notably affects the GC and PS2 as xbox live does support patches, I believe. Go play Socom if you'd like to see how the future of MMO games might just end up on consoles.

Bundles already exist

[Sparr0]

Sony, via their Station.com service, already offers a MMOG bundle. You can pay one price, approx $25/mo iirc, and get access to every premium Sony game, including Star Wars Galaxies, Everquest, Tanarus, Cosmic Rift, etc.

Re:News Flash: Day Extended by 72 Hours

[bluGill]

True, but if don't know which game you want to play having 5 to choose from is better than 1. Imangine that you are curious bout online games, maybe have played a couple different ones at friend's houses, but never got into any one. By having 5 you can subscribe for a month, and have 5 games to play with. Eventially you will get into one and the rest won't matter anymore, but the choice is important at first.

Many people get into their soap on TV, typically at a time when there are 3 to choose from on TV. (One from each network) They have the choice to watch any one, but in practice they only watch one.

Input devices

[Scorchio]

Perhaps the console manufacturers should look to the mobile phone industry for some pointers here. It shouldn't be too hard to add a phone style keypad to a joypad, and the appropriate software to allow SMS style text input, should it? Considering the popularity of text messaging, particularly in Europe, it would provide an interface familiar to millions, without the need force people to have a keyboard sat on their lap in their living room.

Everquest Online Adventures

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe EQOA is a shot in the right direction of MMORPGs. I didn't/don't play EQPC although I did beta test EQ Mac. I have to admit, I found the simplicity of the console to be much more enjoyable. With the Mac version, you had to move windows around. That's not to say EQOA is any less of an involved game than it's PC counterparts.

I say, to each his own. There's too many articles on here arguing console vs. pc. It's really a pointless argument. I don't understand why people get so passionate about it. I can see arguing ps2 vs xbox vs gamecube or mac vs pc. Actually wait, no I cant. Can't we all just...beat a cliche to death?

Scraping the bottom of the bucket?

[Lightwarrior]

Ok, this is a little off-topic - but Anarchy Online and World War II Online are two great examples of how *NOT* to release MOGs. And while there wasn't the same sort of problems with Rubies of Eventide (that I know of; does anyone play this game? I gave the trial a shot, but it was just... flat), it's not exactly expected to be wildly popular.

So why ask these people what they think? Their products are riddled with problems - not the ideal place from which to draw knowledge, unless you're asking them what they think went wrong (ie, benefiting from their experience dealing with problems).

Back on topic: since I agree with Bartle's concept on why MOGs shouldn't have voice yet, I don't think consoles are very receptive to the MOG style. Most of these games rely heavily on player interaction, and a pop-up menu of oft-said phrases will only get you so far.

You basically *need* a keyboard to type rapidly - does each console system have one available (I've seen one for the PS2)? Would bundling it with the game help? Is it even a good idea to bring console gamers into the MOG mix?

-lw

Re:Scraping the bottom of the bucket?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there opinion - in your opinion is bottom of the barrel - where does that leave you? The shit already flushed?

Re:News Flash: Day Extended by 72 Hours

[spirestar]

Theres more than one person in a household, and perhaps they might like to play two as most MMO players I have met.

Re:A PDA? Did I read that correctly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not yet - but it's the shape of things to come.