Slashdot Mirror
Why Consoles Overwhelm PC Games At Retail
An anonymous reader writes "With the GameCube at $99 and PlayStation 2 sales still huge, people are
starting to really notice the shrinkage of PC games at retail. Why? What does
the future hold? An article at JoeUser.com asks that question and looks at what is likely to
happen to PC games as consoles slowly take over most of the retail space for
games." This piece, written by Brad Wardell, creator of Galactic Civilizations, argues: "The issue isn't whether the PC game market will die. It won't. The issue is whether PC games will be able to keep up with console games from a production values point of view."
Well, PC games are more likely to be tipware (information that is free! but donations accepted). Since consoles are less likely to do this, PC games will dominate.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
From Atari 2600 to NES to Genesis to Playstation - console games have always outsold computer games. I know we computer geeks like to think of our game pond as rather large, but it really is rather small. There is definitly something to be said for a game-appliance without all the cruft of computer system around it to administer.
If I had a nickel every time I heard"PC GAMES ARE DEAD!"...
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Look, while most homes have PCs, most of those PCs aren't able to play games very well, and so the situation that many people who are just either jumping into games for the first time or casual gamers have, is the decision to buy a $1000+ PC that can play PC games well for a while(until it is obsoleted), or a $200 console that will always be able to play games well that are designed for it(which should be for at least 4-5 more years into the future).
Thus, you see the more economical, frugal players going with consoles, and the much higher-end players going with PCs.
Not that consoles aren't made for "serious gamers", however they hit the mass market, every kind of gamer, much better than a PC, which plays high-end games for players who are more serious at gaming.
A while back I had to help a friend choose between a $600 PC and a $200 PS2 and he chose the PS2, and although skeptical of its capabilities/staying power at first, he is very happy with it today, over a year later, and he says he will continue to use it instead of upgrading his old PC for games for quite some time.
"With the GameCube at $99 and PlayStation 2 sales still huge, people are starting to really notice the shrinkage of PC games at retail. Why?"
The question answers itself.
--- "Yeah, I'm a bit stressed out. I have a research paper due tomorrow and it has to be +5, Insightful."
One of the things I have always liked about PC games is their ability for players to expand the game. Take a look at Counter-Strike. Noone would have been able to do that with a Console based game. Enjoy D&D, play one of many player made modules that are available online, SP or MP. There are tons of games like that. I think many game makers do themselves a diservice when they don't allow players to create their own missions, or characters, anything to make the game different or fun. If NWN were to just sell improvements to the game engine and keep it compatible with current modules I would pay for it.
You cannot do the same thing with a console, you play through the adventure and that is it. You spent your 50 bucks and got 20 hours of game play, your done. Maybe you can play the whole thing over with *SHOCK* another character! How is that for flexibility from a console!
Consoles are easy to setup and get going, but they lack that ability for people to truly attach themselves to it and expand upon it.
because with PC games you need to deal with many things (installation, hardware setup, drivers, updates, etc). With consoles it's typically just put in your CD/cartidge and it's ready. No installing, no drivers and unless you've fucked around with your hardware, it will work. that is why consoles are better then PC games.
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
What it all comes down to is the lack of innovation in pc game genres. Some genres of game do well for the pc. Usually things like rts, fps, simulation. Anything with a complex interface. Anything that absolutely requires a mouse and keyboard. Anything that requires networking. These are the games that are good on the pc. The rest of the games are good on the console. Platformers. Fighting games. Space Shooters. Some genres do well on both, puzzle games like Tetris for example.
The major pc game genres have had a serious lack of innovation as of late. The RTS and the FPS have both been stagnant. Look at the newest fps. Tell me what new major fundamental innovation in gameplay has changed since Half-Life? Why is Counter-Strike still #1? Because no new game has done anything new and amazing to beat it out gameplay wise. Before pc games will become popular again the genres which sell big on the pc must have major gameplay innovations.
Look at the console. Games like metroid prime, gta, etc. etc. All of these games represent huge fundamental advances in gameplay within the genre. People aren't going to buy the same game 10 different times just because you upped the graphics or changed the theme. Once you've played one stock space shooter you've played them all. Unless someone releases something like Ikaruga with it's color changing awesomeness that makes the genre fun again.
If you want people to buy your game you must innovate. There has to be a gameplay element that is new and awesome that the genre needs. I think there is much hope in Doom3 and Half-Life2 to breathe new life into the fps. Natural Selection has done it and it's popularity is soaring.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I mainly buy console games because, as opposed to pc games, I know they'll always work... and I know that I'll be getting the same experience (except for differing TV/sound quality) that everyone else is getting.
- colin
With the GameCube at $99 and PlayStation 2 sales still huge, people are starting to really notice the shrinkage of PC games at retail. Haven't consoles always dominated the pc in terms of selection by a longshot?
small flowers crack concrete
OK, aybe what others wrote about console games outselling those for PCs is true, I don't know. But whenever I am at a shop I can see that there are more PC titles on shelves than console titles. The problem is the limited variety of PC titles. There are FPS, RTS and RPGs and sports simulations. That's it. Gone are adventure games, gone are arcade titles (platform, kill'em all etc.) That's sad.
KOToR was released both on the PC and (much later) on the Mac. Despite my initial misgivings, it's a great game on the Mac. As long as companies continue to support the Mac, even as an afterthought, I don't think there's going to be any problems.
If I had a nickel every time I heard "MAC GAMES ARE DEAD!"...
You're not going to enjoy the future...
Simply, starting PC game always takes me little bit more time than console game.
Of cource PC doesn't hold ANY-BETTER-TITLE. They haven't ever temped me at all.
--
except for nethack.
also, how is this better for numbers than a generic quick sort? (in case my profesor asks me to explain it)
was the prediction of what games on the PC looks like by 2007, where Duke Nukem Forever is still pending release.
Virtually, Edward Wolpert
Hey, things change all the time. I've got a Playstation and an XBox, and I love both of them. I'm having an absolutely kick-ass time playing FPS games on both consoles, and I finished Aliens Vs. Predator Extinction on the XBox a while ago. More FPS and RTS games are coming out all the time.
Another issue: buy a console and you don't have to upgrade for years. Possibly a lot of years. Offloading the most strenuous software you'll ever use from your PC to a console means your PC might NEVER need to be upgraded. It saves money over time, more than you might think.
Here's one for the Linux crowd: buy a console and it won't matter that you can't find many games for Linux. You'll be free to choose the O/S of your choice for your PC, freeing you to really leverage the machine's power, because you'll still be able to game to your heart's content. No dual-booting necessary.
Anyway, you see where I'm coming from. I love PC games, don't get me wrong, but I think consoles are winning because they're more convenient, cheaper long-term, and of high enough quality that the switch is painless.
Just a few thoughts...
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I think this idea can be more simply understood by the fact that PC's are an open platform (not open like open source, no, but still open to developement). Consoles have large corporations working very hard to get their hardware into consumer hands. Therefore, with competition, these hardware companies demand an edge over the competition. They use mascots, innovation, killer games (often exclusive), and brand recognition to appeal to a mass market. The games sell the hardware, so obviously there is great focus on the games.
While Dell, HP, etc. may be advertising the PC, they are not really focusing on games. They are focusing on their hardware, and often use generic ideas of games and other applications to fill a commercial. So a market for PC games does exist and can be said to be strong, but it requires the game company to have its own mascot, killer game, brand recognition, etc. (a good example being Blizzard). The PC market does not have the same focus the console market has, which may (let me try a little economics here) mean the efficiency of the market is not as complete as the console market.
Really, PC manufacturers should be promoting games, because this can help push their new hardware sales. Bundling a new desktop with a killer game is not a bad idea. This type of thing is becoming far more common, but it takes time to develope the market like this and the console market has had more time anyway.
This is funny considering that consoles are becoming more like PCs all the time. The X-Box especially, with its hard drive and modified Windows OS, is a herald of things to come. As users demand more complexity and sophistication from console games, the consoles themselves will become more sophisticated, which means more chances for things to go wrong.
I have a friend with an X-Box who's already had to exchange it because the HD on it went kablooey. Remind you of any PC users you know?
Also, I've often predicted that once internet connectivity becomes the norm for consoles, game companies will slip into the "ship now, patch later" mentality that so far console gamers have escaped from -- but I believe those days to be numbered.
Scenario one:
Parents want to use the home pc whenever they want and don't want kids using it unattended.
Kids want to play games whenever they want.
So the only logical answer is to get a console for the kids to play when the parents don't want them on the PC.
Scenario two:
You don't own and don't want a PC.
Scenario three:
The games you want won't run on, or aren't available for your PC.
In all other situations I can think of, you already have a PC, and all you get from shelling out $99 for a game cube or much more for another console is the ability to buy all your games for $20 more than the regular price.
I bought a laptop off ebay with a PII 300Mhz and 256 Mb of RAM. I was bored and tried to find anything at Microcenter that would run on it. I gave up after only finding 4 year old lame knockoffs ("Classic Arcade") that my system would meet. My Dell 1.3 GHz that's only about 2 years old is borderline in terms of playing any RPG nowadays. This may be a dumb analogy, but could you imagine if your 3 year old car couldn't find gas anymore that allowed it to run above 55mpg.
Consoles turned me off for similar reasons. I might have had unrealistic expectations, but I expected games to be similar to DVDs. Expensive at release and then decline to a reasonable ~$30 level (like PC games were). No, instead even games for obsolete boxes are still >$50 often times. Although I played my freinds' Segas, Ataris, Com64, etc, my first console I plumped down hard cash on was the Super NES. Not even a year or so later its EOL. Pissed is an understatement.
I know this post sounds like a rant, but these are the reasons I stay away from both. I would like to get back into an RPG, but I don't want to spend $100-300 for a box that will EOL within 2 years or be forced to constantly upgrade.
John
He's also right that the PC will still be a viable, but different, gaming platform. I give you the "killer app" of PC games--mods. For example, Simcity 4 has nearly 2000 custom lots, 20 game mods, and a fansite so complete that its users will pay to support it (SimTropolis).
I also envision the next generation of MMORPG including a higher level of user input. Imagine a Slashdot style MMORPG. Higher level players would be allowed to actually create some of the in-game environment in the same way that users can moderate on Slashdot. Instead of having quests and creatures randomly generated by Sony Interactive, quests could be developed by Drag0nSl4yer, level 55 ranger, for a few level 5 clerics. To control this system, some sort of meta-moderation allows quest participants and admins to oversee the newly licensed creators. I think PCs are uniquely adapted to allowing substantial user interface that can meaningfully change and improve the game.
While this doesn't mean that shelf share of PC games gets any bigger, it does mean that the PC will remain the home of a viable game development market.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Becaues it doesn't affect me, nor does it matter to me. And judging by the amount of posts, the same can be said for the majoirty of all /. users.
It was supposed to be IF X less than Y, but the symbol gets stolen by tricky html tags.
And I think that it is quicker because it does it in less steps than the one that is included.
Why?
1. PC games are a hassle: We all know the story: patches, patches, patches. The fact is that it's just hard to develop a game for countless hardware configurations that you can't possibly all test.
2. Consoles are closing the gap: The bleeding edge of PC gaming will always be technologically superior. However, while the difference between an average "gaming PC" and a console used to be unthinkably night-and-day, it's just not as big of a gap anymore.
3. Decline of PC-centric genres: If you're over 20, you probably remember when everyone used to play military sims on their PCs. You know, Falcon 3.0 and M1 Tank Platoon and such. Lots of Microprose stuff. Well that genre is all but dead now (ironically, now when we have the technology to do it justice). Real Time Strategy games are getting hopelessly vanilla - we need another game on the order of Total Annihilation to kickstart the genre. The point-and-click adventure genre, much like the military sim genre, has been relegated to a small niche audience, despite recent gems like The Longest Journey and Syberia (and even Grim Fandango a few years ago, which got lots of critical attention but did not garner the kind of sales it needed). Probably the only real PC-centric genre that still stands strong is the first person shooter. And even there, the Halos and SOCOMs of the console world are helping to close that gap (though the fragheads will always, of course, desire the fast-twitch gameplay of a mouse-driven FPS).
4. Cost: Competition is driving hardware prices down, down, down. New game prices have stayed put for years now (not even adjusting for inflation), and in fact have gotten cheaper in many cases (not only the Greatest Hits/Platinum/Player's Choice serieses, but games aren't ever hitting the $70 price point that I paid for Street Fighter II and Chrono Trigger back in the SNES days. Also, even non-discounted games get marked down very often these days, after being on the shelves for 3 months or so). PC games have gotten cheaper too, although often in a forced, "this damn thing isn't selling" kind of way. And while gaming PCs can be had cheaper than before, it still falls well short of the inexpensive nature of consoles.
Personally, I would love nothing more than to see a PC gaming return to glory. I loved the genres that have now all but died out. I love the limitless potential of PC gaming. But developers must find a way to make things more stable, and must be less demanding in hardware requirements. Ever notice how a small sequel (like a new entry in the Madden series or something) will have very modest improvements in video/sound/etc, but often significantly higher hardware requirements? Not acceptable.
Rather than say there is no innovation, I would say that PCs continue to excel in the genres you mention: RTS, FPS, simulations, as well as RPGs and strategy games.
I think what's happening is that consoles, with their inexpensive, stable platforms, are closing the gaps that made PCs better, such as Internet multi-player and performance.
I see the future of gaming as a client/server model with PCs as the servers and consoles as the clients. PCs will serve as content creation platforms, dedicated servers, websites about the games, etc. In other words, infrastructure or meta-platforms, if you will. Consoles will be as they are now, stand-alone boxes to play single-player or hot-seat games, or clients to link to dedicated servers (corporate of fan-run) online.
It's a good model that takes away the headaches of knowing the client hardware, but still allows the freedom and flexibility offered by the PC.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
oh, okay. that makes sense. thanks so much for your help.
That's when I noticed that you could buy a A$2,500 PC or a A$350 console to play pretty much the same games. I bought a PSX and didn't return to PC gaming for roughly five years. And if Neverwinter Nights had been released on network-enabled consoles rather than PC I might still not have returned to PC gaming.
I don't know if I would agree with you on the "serious gaming" bit. Firstly, I've seen amazing dedication for certain console titles. It seems a lot like the arcade days: people are beating times and scores again, not just necessarily playing against each other (I've not experienced online consoles yet). Otherwise there are relaxed games played among friends who are physically at the machine, and now there are online games. For most people on the PC, gaming is for relaxing also.
I see nothing about the PC that makes its games more serious, except for the genres that are still stuck on it: MMORPGs, strategy, and FPS (as the article points out). All of those games are huge, especially in Korea. So I suppose you could say PCs are therefore more serious.
Aside from those genres, the only other thing serious about the PC is the money you have to put into it. I bought my computer three years ago I think, then upgraded the video card early this year for $100 (Radeon 8500 LE). But next year I'll need to do an upgrade that I expect will cost $600 or so. Averaged with my inital costs, maybe I can say it is $800/4-years for PC? The console would probably be $250/3-years. And hopefully in the next couple of years, they'll add some genres with ladders, and even maybe modding eventually (I doubt it, though).
Tips (money) can be exchanged for goods and services!
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Where have all the puzzles gone, long time passing?
Where have all the puzzles gone, long time ago?
Where have all the puzzles gone?
Killed by 3D, every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
As someone who has worked doing technical support for PC games (and still does), I can state that in my experience, the vast majority of problems that the "average" user experiences are things that are insanely annoying. I'd say a great percentage of problems are: 1. A person's video card drivers are hopelessly out of date and the old ones don't work with the game. It doesn't help that new drivers come out every few weeks - the average user NEVER thinks that they would need to go search for drivers all the time. After all, things like DirectX always come with their game CDs, so they don't have to "Go to some site" to get it. But drivers never are included on anything. 2. Newer games are actually being much more restrictive on what they support. Despite the existence of DirectX which was supposed to make it so you could have "almost any card", a lot of recent games support ATI, NVIDIA, and little else. I don't know how often I've seen someone say "I bought this computer a week ago and it won't run this game, and I have to buy a new piece of hardware?" Add to these things the fact that a lot of games nowadays just don't work out of the box and need to be patched ad infinitum, CD keys which may be necessary but cause more trouble for average players than most people think, the dearth of true innovation lately, etc. No wonder consoles continue to lead! Buy game, place game in console, turn on. No directories, configuration, anything.
if the majority of games are on consoles, I can just get one and be relieved of the last reason to have Windoze running on anything (obviously, that console would not be an X-Box then). If games move away from the PC, there is truly no reason to use MS products. I guess Sony is doing us all a favor (us all = people who believe in freedom).
Now, if we could just stop MS from suing mod chip makers, all would be golden.
MS = MacroSlavery
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
"Whereas there's no alternative to optimizing a console game.. it's required or the game won't run."
That's why EA's Need for Speed series on the PS2 has few frame rate issues, yet the ports for the GCN and Xbox will become slideshows very easily? Or Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance on the tanker's deck (XBox port)?
"With a console they have to get it right, or the game will forever be flawed."
Sadly, the amount of flawed games is getting up there. The Xbox is probably the worst offender here, because it's getting more of the ports from the PC that can have some pretty serious bugs in them. Games like KOTOR are awesome, but how many people were unhappy because of the stealth rescue on the sith ship that ended with them reloading the game?
On the PC side, quality hasn't been a big issue because there hasn't been any. It seems like the policy's slowly transfering to consoles, which sucks rocks.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Vselka Infiltration (Available 11/13/03)
Having located the Vselka, Sam Fisher must now infiltrate its claustrophobic corridors and access its archive system to locate the nuclear warheads.
Vselka Submarine (Available 11/14/03)
Having neutralized both Alekseevich and Masse, Third Echelon finds out from Masse's files at Kola Cell that Alekseevich's plan is already in motion and his men have captured a submarine docking station. Third Echelon suspects that the docked submarine, the Vselka, carries nuclear warheads, and Fisher is sent in to stop the theft or, if he's too late, find out where they have been moved to.
This adds on top of the Kola Cell you can download.
What's that, you say, a console that's flexible? Pish posh!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Yea, you can't just use hardware which has no drivers (GUS Max in Win95? hah), but everything that comes out (ATI, NVidia, Creative, etc) has DirectX drivers because people won't buy them otherwise.
Granted, the drivers are usually buggy, and end up rebooting your PC randomly anyways, but they are much more consistent nowadays. It did take until DirectX6 for this to be more consistent, though.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The writer of this article doesn't appreciate that Warcraft III's strength is not in its graphics. I'd be surprised if his hypothetical team of 5 programmers could match its carefully balanced and varied gameplay or even its AI.
Sure, cool graphics rocks... but I wish more game producers would realise that good games are more than just cool graphics.
As a former console only gamer who recently gave them up for PC gaming I think I can state with some authority that there are reasons that the PC platform wont be going away anytime soon.
I (like many others) was one of the first people to own a spanking new PS2 on launch date. After buying into all the BS hype about what the machine was supposed to be able to do, how could I not plunk down almost 525 bucks and bring one home? (325 for console, 35 for controller, 100 for 2 games, 35 for memory card, 35 for DVD remote, all prices include tax)
I get the machine home and play for a few hours, severe graphical glitches. I manage to take it back and actually get a new PS2 out of the 2nd shipment of machines, alls good for 3 and a half months. It starts getting 'unable to read CD/DVD' error. Great. I didnt buy an extra 50 dollar warranty for my 300 dollar item, so now after blowing 550 bucks Im left with either:
A) a worthless console, or
B) send it back to Sony and for a mere 190 bucks (including shipping) (525 dollars for console total) a 3 month old refurbished machine. BS.
Many of my friends are on their 3rd PS2s or their 2nd Xboxes, because of failed CD/DVD-rom drives. Start adding up the price of a new console every year or two and it really gets up there. Even when factoring in that the price of the hardware is coming down. The same price I would have initially laid out to keep my PS2 working again (around 750 bucks) is more than enough to buy a basic PC and throw a new FX nvidia card in there. Bleeding edge? No, but more then enough to play a plethora of games currently out there.
Wheres the HDD for the ps2? No where to be found. Where's a mouse and keyboard that you can use on the Xbox without ripping it apart and soldering in new pieces? No where. (Thanks for the USB support MS!) Simply put, I'd much rather go get new drivers for my Nvidia card once every 6-8 months, then popping open the case of my 'easy to use' console and having to worry about hard modding it with a dremel, drill and soldering pencil just to give it the abilities it should already come with. Sure, I could try to play HALO online with the goofy assed controller, but anytime I sit down for a serious game, Im going to get owned by some guy whos firing at me using a logitech MX700 and a M$ natural feel keyboard.
PCs also excel in demoing abilities. Anytime I get bored online, I can easily go and download a new demo of something new and interesting and fire it up, check it out, test it with other people online. The few demos that get released on consoles are usually so limited as to not make it worth your while. (2 minute limit to explore a level, or no online ability for an online game, etc.) It translates into either a 6 dollar rental on a game that might or might not suck, or a 50 dollar purchase on a game that might or might not suck. Can anyone tell me the last time you could log into a console and get a free game? (Enemy Territory anyone? Speaking of which, can anyone show me a console FPS with more innovation than ET?)
When you add up the TRUE costs of console use, having to wait on the OEM for any upgrades, the cost of games and then still see that just because its a console doesnt always mean its easy to use, consoles just dont live up. PC gaming still looks attractive. Particularly for those of us who realize what the true cost is going to be in the long run and would rather invest it in a machine whose graphics and play usually live up the term 'next generation' so much more than consoles ever can or do.
Because of shovelware (both ways) and warez (the countless copies of Doom floating around the net).
Some suggestions for the PC games industry to help pull itself out of the rut:
1.Modablility Modability Modability.
This means releasing Map Editors.
And this means releasing 3D modeling tools (e.g. plugins for 3D packages like GMAX)
And (depending on the game), it means releasing Source Code for the in-game scripts, Source Code for some parts of the game itself or whatever. For example, C&C Renegade is a good game that could have been top-notch if they had:
A.fixed the bugs in the game and the editing tools
and B.released the source code to the gameplay scripts.
Look at Unreal, Doom, Quake & Half-Life. Those games wouldnt be as popular if it wasnt for the various source code releases.
2.get over the obsession with Stupid Copy Protection Schemes (Safedisk, Securom et al).
They do not work and probobly never will.
Finding "no-cd" cracks for any current game is dead simple.
Some better ideas to help prevent piracy:
1.CD-Keys/Serial Numbers that are linked to online play (i.e. if you dont have a valid serial number, you cant play online)
2.Have things like patches, updates, extra content, online messageboards and the like linked to the CD key. No valid CD key, no access to the online content.
3.Better testing. Typically, PC publishers tend to have a "ship it out the door as fast as possible and fix bugs through patches" attitude. They need to do more testing (in particular, they need to do testing on older operating systems, testing on older hardware and testing on slow connections).
4.More variety.
One idea of a game that I know I would play:
A game similar to Diablo II but set in the future with laser guns, starships and so on. Actually, the game I am thinking of would be very much like a cross between Diablo II, Star Trek Away Team and an old game called Future Magic.
and 5.emphasize Gameplay over Graphics.
For example, there are too many FPS games where most of the game is about shooting anything that moves. If you want to do a good FPS game, have other elements such as puzzles that need solving, keys to find, new powers to find and acquire and so on.
If you want to see what I would consider a good FPS, check out C&C Renegade and TRON 2.0. I consider both of those good FPS's. Or check out the older game Strife. That was also a good FPS.
In Germany, PC games consistently sell about twice as well as console games -- even info/edutainment sells better than console games. Germany isn't a huge market, but I suspect that the rest of Europe is the same. I'd say:
Japan: consoles dominate
N. America: consoles & PC duke it out, consoles may be gaining an edge.
Europe: PC dominates.
Also, don't forget that consoles are at the height of their game sales cycle, and PC sales usually decline at that point; let's wait another couple of years before drawing a conclusion.
I think this is the major problem with using the PC for games instead of a console. And it's not really necessary that it be a problem. The companies that develop games for PCs look at all the new eye candy they can make with the newest graphics card, processor, and RAM upgrades, and decide that it's not worth making a game that will run on hardware that is a couple of years old. But really they are just limiting their own market. I'm sure that Duke Nukem Forever will be a kickass game if it ever comes out, but I'm not going to buy it. I have a 3 year old computer that does everything I want it to except play the newest games, and it's not worth it to me to spend another $1000 on a new computer just for games. If game companies took that into account when they designed new PC games maybe their market wouldn't be shrinking as much.
Well, to counter some of your points, I also was standing out in early morning light on October 26th, 2000 and got one of the few 1st generation PS2s. It still works fine.
Didn't get my Xbox until earlier this year, but have been playing it hard and heavy and no problems.
Of course, in both cases I do take the time to make sure that the consoles are not in a position to get overheated (which is always a potential problem) and to clean them often to remove dust buildup.
My PS1 from 1995 only finally bit the bullet in 2002 when the cd-rom started skipping. I haven't had a PC last that long without something going bad.
Not to point fingers, but how many people that have had problems with consoles take the time to make sure their product is clean, not sitting on carpet, etc? I see the same problem with friends who don't do these things and have to buy new consoles -- however, these are the same friends who don't do the same upkeep on their PCs and constantly have problems with them too...
It's surprising (or not) how long these products last with a little bit of preventive maintenance.
1) Games on PC are all the fucking same - you take one engine, change the weapons, art, and levels, and you're done, it's all copycat shit.
2) They never fucking work - they don't work on Linux, almost none work on Mac (at EB, only the Blizzard stuff is Macompatible) and fuck, the ones designed for Windows need some pretty fucking specific hardware to work properly.
3) It's too fucking expensive - if I buy a new video card every odd-numbered year and a new processor or ram alternating even-numbered years, I'm spending a shitload but if I buy an XBox one year, a PS2 the next, and get a Gamecube for Christmas or something, I've spent less than the cost of a gaming PC. In fact, I've spent less than the cost of a shitty PC that won't do a fucking thing.
So instead of spending $2500 on a gaming PC with everything, I can spend $730 on every console there is. The GBA I can take with me, the XBox I can play online, and that leaves me with $1700 for games, or a new TV, or extra controllers to play two-player, something you can't do on a PC (unless your roommate wants to drop another $2500).
That $730 will last you 4-5 years on average (or, in the case of the Playstation, 8+ years), while the PC will have to be upgraded constantly, with video cards that cost the same as a new console every two years at least, or video cards that cost the same as two consoles if you want to go hardcore and get the best graphics. On consoles, one purchase is all it takes, and you'll have the best graphics for a long time.
--Dan
I love my PC and keep it upgraded with the decent video cards & components.
Last night, I tried to install XIII. It took at half-hour to install and then wouldn't run. When I became completely frustrated, I played Sphinx & True Crime on the GameCube.
I am becoming less and less impressed with PC games. They seem to miss out on the whole "fun" factor.
i mean like people work collaritively and post homework solutions for things like this quick sort / bubble sort algarithm?? i mean, im never going to use this crap in the real world right?
I hope you aren't a comp sci major.
Since I stopped gaming on my PC, the only upgrades are done about 1 to 1.5 years after the things come out, so they're very budget priced.
;)
Console gaming is a lot cheaper and has more variety. I was just clarifying that DirectX wasn't as bad as it used to be
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I've never really understood this argument completely.
Most people I know who have consoles have more than one, usually a GC and PS2, which puts the price at somewhere around 400 if purchased new.
But how many of them really don't have a PC either?
Most people also have a computer, which at cheapest is about 600 new.
400+600=1000.
So then you're already at about the price of a decent new PC.
And I think it's sort of incorrect to assume you can't play any PC games on a system that currently costs less than 1000. My system that I originally bought for about 2700 probably would cost less than 1000 now, and I can run most of the new games on it. I might have to get a new graphics card for Doom 3, but that will probably cost me 200 max when I get it.
The thing is, to me, if you're really going to be frugal, you have to be honest with yourself about whether or not you are going to buy a PC too. And I really really doubt that most people buying consoles will not have a PC as well.
There are those people who really can't afford much more than a 486 and a $99 console--and I agree with you that this is part of the console market's mass appeal. I'm just pointing out that for a wide swath of the market, the "consoles are cheaper" argument doesn't really make sense when you add things together.
PCs do a lot of other things that consoles currently can't, and for a lot of people, those functions are valuable. So if it's already packaged into the PC, it may be cheaper to get the PC.
Not everyone--dare I say few people, or a minority of people?--actually buy a PC for the sole purpose of playing games. There's web (news, information, shopping, etc.), email (sending photos, communicating, etc.), MP3s, word processing, etc.
I am looking into consoles more and more because I'm getting so damn tired of MS. But I've never really felt like I was wasting my money on a PC.
Then again, I represent a very small segment of society when one considers my computing outside of gaming. I do pretty heavy numerical computing for my vocation, and need a general-purpose system for that sort of thing. So maybe I have a twisted idea of the average user's use of a PC.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
The reason why I go console over PC every time is the cost. I can spend the same amount of money for the PC or Console version of a game, BUT I don't have to spend more money on hardware with my Console.
I have KOTOR for my XBox and love it, my perfectly respectable P3 833 won't play the PC version.
I'm guaranteed that every game out there for my XBox is going to play beautifully on my XBox, the same can not be said about the PC games.
You forgot the most difficult obstacle in developing PC games: the wide variety of hardware on which your game needs to run. It's gotten better, mainly thanks to a unified API owned by a certain software behemoth, but it's still a mess. When developing for a console, there's one hardware configuration. I'm sure it cuts QA budgets by half, if not more.
i'd add that the basic reason is that consoles are a specifically designed and purposed to be mass market devices.
if you see a ps2 game in a store, you know that your ps2 can play it. no questions asked. no weird driver problems, no 3d card or processor requirements.
turn on machine, plug in game, and play.
PC gaming is inherently more complex (variable system requirements and all), and unrealistic marketing of 'minimum' requirements isn't helping any.
I love PC games as much as the next guy - but the reason the console market outsells the pc market is simply because they hit the mass market better.
You hear rappers, actors and sports stars talking about their console libraries. You -ever- hear any one of them talking about a PC game?
the very idea that someone has to be 'serious' about gaming to play PC games is indicative of the situation. you have to -really- like PC games to put up with the upgrade cycles, the drivers, the config files and the key mapping.
this generation of consoles cost at most $300 brand new. and they have a life of 4 years at least. most PC gamers will have gone through -at-least- 2 video cards if not 2 entirely different computers in that time frame.
then there's the mass-market-friendly rental/return scene for console games, standing in stark contrast to the PC.
neither market is going to die, or is 'better', but it's inevitable that the machine specifically -targetted-, ground-up, to gaming is going to achieve greater financial success (from the mass market) than the machine that merely -supports- gaming.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Must we really ask this question AGAIN and AGAIN? Every console cycle has had it's ups and downs along with the PC game ups and downs. In the down cycle of the consoles, PC game technology will exceed those old consoles, and the game market will pick up. Then the new consoles will come, PC games will go into their down cycle again as the console market goes up.
It's a never ending rollercoaster with one market peaking where the other is in a valley. The consumers just put their money where the best games/technology is and right now, there's plenty to be happy with on the console side.
And on another topic... I for one like to wait around for cheaper PC versions of games. GTA III for example, and KOTOR is my next purchase.
Heh there are way too many PC games I purchased that took a ton of customization to get working properly. I just bought a ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128MB... but this was last resort sigh.
For the past year, only few games run with my video card
1.) RTCW
2.) The sims
Everything else works half assed
1.) Delta force black hawk down
2.) Battlefield 1942
3.) Americas Army
4.) Serious Sam Second Encounter
5.) RTCW enemy territory
But the day I need an add-on to my console to play a game I just bought is the day I give up on consoles.
Yoshi's Safari for Super NES needed a special gun controller (sold separately). The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask for Nintendo 64 needed a memory upgrade (sold separately). Final Fantasy XI for PS2 needs a hard drive and a broadband adapter. I'm predicting that the Xbox will soon have Live-only games, which require a $6/mo subscription to Xbox Live plus a $50/mo subscription to a high-speed Internet provider such as MSN Broadband, plus a 5-figure downpayment on a new house if you don't already live in an area that gets cable or DSL. (All prices in U.S. dollars.)
but i keep up with the news, frequent tech and game forums, can do my banking, shopping, email, learn about things far easier than i could otherwise by visiting a library, keep up with my digital pictures, play with digital imaging software
All of which I do on my three-year-old PC, which is about as powerful as what's being sold new for $200 on Walmart.com.
enjoy multimedia (watch movies, listen to music), have access to other content
You can watch movies and listen to music using the built-in DVD/CD player of a PlayStation 2 console. If you have a Cube instead of a PS2 (like myself), a 3-year-old PC should also have a built-in CD player and can be upgraded for $50 with a DVD-ROM. In addition, if you have a billing address in the United States, it will run iTunes and Napster music stores.
It probably took the same amount of time to get comfortable with the controls- many, many hours. But now I have absolutely no problem, I actually like it.
The argument here is that a 100-hour PC FPS player will typically beat a 100-hour console FPS player on the same server. (Yes, there exist console games and PC games that can connect to the same servers.) A mouse has more bandwidth from brain to computer than an analog joystick has because while a console's analog joystick involves only the thumb muscles, a mouse involves the arm, the wrist, and the fingers.
The company who made it for Microsoft sold the engine to Lucasarts who made Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. It's the same engine with different gfx/sound/levels and some addons to it.
I can certainly sympathize with you on this. Many is a game I've had to reinstall once or twice to get it working, especially if the game became corrupt or what not. By rights if there were more Mac games I think they would work better and Apple would make more sales.
You are right - it is too expensive, and with those cheap Dell/Gateway PC's it's a wonder if they last 2 years before they break down on you. Hell, the last computer I built was in Jan 1999 (AMD K6-2 266 machine) and I am still using it today because I already have a NES/SNES/N64 and Gamecube connected up to a TV and VCR in the family living room, each console with lots of games that still work and that we can still play.
I still spent less on all that over the years then I would have if I had decided to constantly upgrade my PC every 6 months just to play the latest and greatest buggiest boring "trendy" game.
And you would still have enough to get a Gamecube for xmas now that they have gone down in price and perhaps even a new TV after that too.
Which is why consoles usually last a lot longer then PC's in the long run. My NES is close to 15 years old now and still works most of the time, my SNES is now 9 years old, N64 6 years old and the Cube I got 2 years ago. Altogether the systems when bought new along with games cost me a lot less then if I had decided to constantly upgrade my PC all the time.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
One aspect that this article ignores is the fact that Consoles have this horrible thing called "format holder" - what it basically means is that if you want to develop a game for eh PS2, XboX, or the GameCube you have to submit it first to the platform owners, and get their approval. This does have its benefits as it does iron out most of the bugs from console games and gets them "to work right out of the box", but it has a darker side as well. There are limited quantities of games that they allow to be released at a given year, in order to not cannibalize the sales of other titles (read: "fix" the market), I have known more than one game developer here in the UK that had it's project cancelled half way through or sometimes even AFTER the CD's were printed, they sat at the warehouse and would never see the light of day... This also translates to the "content-control" - if SONY, or MS, or SCO (oops), don't want your game because it is too violent (though violence they can accept), or sexy, or anti-social or just too innovative for them you are doomed. I believe that this level or censorship (and let's call it by the name) was only evident in communist Russia, and even than it was YOU who censored their games... Freedom of speech hasn't been such a big issue with games yet, but who knows? maybe when we will start seeing political games emerge than the true nature of SONY and MS would reveal itself? Also, I didn't see anyone mention The Sims - the most successful game in history (over 20M copies and expansions sold, to the best of my knowledge), which was born and bred on the PC. But I digress...
"667 - Neighbour of the beast"
The dark side of the consoles, explained.
"I shot Merlin Monroe"
Frankly, I like the joypads better than the mouse/keyboard combo nowadays.
Care to explain how it's easier to finely aim sniper weapons such as Quake III's railgun with a joystick than with a mouse?
you can usually access inventory items and special functions without taking your thumb off the left joystick
Because the game is designed to allow this. I'm assuming that the equip key in such FPS games is bound to the right thumb.
On a keyboard, you have to move your hand usually
Many games allow for equipping a weapon by moving the mouse wheel or by holding a specific button and moving the mouse.