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

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 that is the reason why most people like to game with a console instead with a overpriced pc that will be outdated the next month and with games that are in ALPHA/BETA/TESTING stage when they're released.

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).

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.

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....

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

[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

[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: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.

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.