Is PC Online Gaming Unwell?

Thanks to GameSpy for their 'Spy/CounterSpy' editorial discussing whether the rise of online console gaming will eventually lead to the decline of online PC gaming. On the one hand, it's argued: "Not only do I think that console gaming is not a threat to PC gaming - I think it actually helps the PC gaming scene by introducing new players to the online gaming world", but on the other hand, an alternative point of view is advanced: "My current love for certain online PC titles really reminded me just how annoying online computer gaming is... even though there are PC exclusive online games that I love to play, I'd rather be playing them on Xbox Live."

Comments

Re:One for boxing day, fuckers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Cock knocker,

UR teh asswipe. That is the end of his penis. I realize that you no longer have a penis, but I'm sure you're seen your father's penis enough times to remember. (or have you blocked it out of your mind, with help from your psychologist). You realize that all psychologists are gay, and only want to get you bent over their desk.

U will be licking their balls. SLURP SLURP LICK LICK mmmmm TASTY BALLS.

Here goes...

[Otter]

Man, this is like KDE vs GNOME or Linux vs GNU/Linux for you guys!

Every day, it's either "GameSpy says a lack of orignality threatens gaming!" or "GameSpy says console [PC] gaming is going to destroy PC [console] gaming!"

I can't wait until SCO sues EA...

Um. What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I'll take a keyboard and mouse with a high resolution monitor over a stupid xbox or ps2 controller with a standard tvs creen any day.

Re:Um. What?!

[Goldberg's Pants]

Absolutely. I mean really, you ask anyone who has played Counterstrike or whatever on a PC if they'd like to go and play it with a console controller... I would bet damn near 100% wouldn't even give the console a look-in.

Same with games like Warcraft. I've played RTS games on consoles and they SUCK without a mouse, and playing a game like warcraft with it's sweet graphical nuances would just SUCK on the console.

Online console gaming, sure, will probably eat into the PC a little, but I'm really hoping that's where all the fuckwits go, leaving the mature, decent crowd on the PC. I mean sure, there'll always be the share of idiots in online games, but the consoles can be their playground.

Re:Um. What?!

[Recoil_42]

i'll bite: first of all, console gaming doesn't mean low resolution. HDTV means 480p, 720p, and 1080i. that for the most part matches, and at 1080i, beats, the resolutions that most people's PC monitors are at. couple that with a 50" inch 'monitor', and the visual 'richness' far surpasses that of PC gaming. and just try to convince me that you don't enjoy a nice comfy couch over an office chair. as for controls, once you get used to it, it's actually alot nicer than using a mouse and wasd, simply because movement is analog, and you don't ever have to look down to find hotkeys -- all the controls i need are millimetres away form each other, and in very sensible places. its also much more realisitc -- aiming is much harder, and while most people complain about this, i think its just a matter of how games are made -- in most PC fps's, it takes 10-50 shots to kill someone, because everyone is always so precise. ergo, very little people play, for instance, tom clancy games on PC, versus more arcadey games like CS and BF1942. but on XBOX, for instance, Rainbow Six 3 is the most-played game online, followed by Ghost Recon: Island Thunder. Because aiming is so much more realistic, one or two shots can kill, and so more people play these games. otherwise, you get into 'death ballets' where everyone dances around everyone else trying to hit them the required 10-15 times. the real added bonus of this is that headshots are harder to get, and skill is therefore rewarded more. (don't even bother with ps2 though imo, because the analog sticks are too short -- xbox has longer sticks, meaning better precision, hence the popularity of FPS's on it.) as for RTS's, i agree. consoles can't do them at all. but you know, just as well as i, that even PC's can't do RTS's right. its just absolutely pointless to command one unit at a time (or even small groups) of a large army, in real-time. a mouse is designed move one, not 500, objects at a time.

Re:Um. What?!

[WaKall]

Have you played Warcraft3 or Starcraft online? To be sure, there are tons of 'fuckwits' on battle.net.

Any on-line competitive game is going to draw people who are there just to piss you off. You'll get backstabbers, hackers, quitters, racists, homophobes, name-callers.

Basically, I've just decided to stay off-line or only game with my personal friends. For the amount of time I have to give to gaming, and the number of good games out there to play, I find I'd rather spend my time w/o idiotic childish types ruining my day.

Re:Um. What?!

[bugbread]

Ok, mouse I understand, but keyboard? You get the ability to precision aim, but lose the ability to precision move? Uh...no...Give me a gamepad for my left hand and a mouse for my right hand any say.

Re:Um. What?!

[Goldberg's Pants]

Yes I've played Warcraft 3 online. I notice a ton less griefers on there than back in Starcraft's boom period.

I think ultimately consoles will draw away the fuckwits. Of course, the big problem is the fact the the decent console online networks charge you money. The idiots who get off on ruining games for everyone else won't want to pay for the pleasure.

Another area online gaming on the consoles sucks is cheats. SOCOM for example has been ruined by cheats. On the PC, if a cheat is found, it's usually patched. On the Playstation or whatever (Xbox I'm not so sure with it's internal hard drive) the cheats are there forever. Any "patch" will come in the form of a new version of the game.

In short, what with the cheating issue, game mods etc... PC gaming OWNS the consoles in a big way. PC gaming online will survive, if for no other reason than the amazing communities that build up around games, create additional content etc... I mean take a look at games like Grand Prix Legends, Myth/Myth II... Them and so many more are still going strong online thanks to the community. Console games can't possibly compete with that.

Re:Um. What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why gamepads should have a trackball in place of the right thumbstick.

Re:Um. What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, the games should be handled server-side and cheating should be taken care of there. that was the problem with socom. As it turns out many of the functions in the game were handled client side with the naive notion that the game couldn't be 'hacked' on this side of the system, then Shiny just got too lazy to fix it and started the next Socom. The exception to this however is XBox where many times a system can be the server, but in this case as well patching can and does occur. Two different systems and two different ways to handle it. Personally I like the XBox the most. Downloadable content/patch is awesome and on the console requires little effort from me.

Re:Um. What?!

[__aatgod8309]

Something like this?

Re:Um. What?!

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Spoken like someone who doesn't know all the facts but has a position already set... XBox games are routinely patched. With the addition of the PS2 hard drive in the market, subsequent PS2 games are going to be patched AND obviously the PS3 will have a hard drive. [By the way, Madden 2004 already requires downloaded content updates before you may play online.]

Let's see, what other FUD are you spreading? "Consoles will draw away the fuckwits?" Why? You give no valid reason why this statement is true. 90% of the population is of limited intellect, based on my experiences. Without giving a reason for your above statement, I might guess that you're not in the 10%. And not only do you not offer a reason why the "fuckwits" are being drawn to the console games, you actually refute it in the next two sentences. That's a hell of a way to make an argument son.

In short, it seems odd that anyone would take such a stance as you have. I enjoy playing online games for both the PS2 and for my PC.

As for the content thing - you offer no numbers to back up your claim. I would guess that the majority of people playing multiplayer online games are playing either original games [with only patches from the company being used] or professionally released mods - a la Counterstrike. You have no numbers to back up your belief that modded games are where everyone plays so, yet again, your point is not made. Better luck next time.

Re:Um. What?!

[Goldberg's Pants]

Spoken like someone who doesn't know all the facts but has a position already set... XBox games are routinely patched.

If you actually read what I said bollockface I SAID I didn't know if the XBOX games were patched. Asshat.

Consoles would hopefully draw fuckwits as consoles are a shitload cheaper than PC's.

Do a search for some stats. Counterstrike is still the most popular online game, and Counterstrike was *NOT* a professionally released mod. It was already well on it's way to being the most played online game when Sierra bought the rights to rip people off with a boxed version (when they could get Half Life cheaper, and download CS for free.)

By fuckwits I meant the cheaters and the idiot teenagers who think they can insult me by saying things about my mother. You, sir, are an ass, and make it quite clear you think yourself superior when in actual fact you have your head up your ass and well and truly live up to your username, because that's what you're spewing.

Re:Um. What?!

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

You believe income level is related to being a "fuckwit"? And for someone who complains about "idiot teenagers", you come off sounding quite a bit like one with the vulgarity and childish reply you've given me.

Have a nice day.

Re:Um. What?!

[Uma Thurman]

Not to jump in, but it's obvious that for you, being a fuckwit is an independent variable.

It Won't Unless....

[RaisinBread]

Console gaming turns into PC gaming.

It seems like (to me) that consoles have really drifted toward a PC game like setup to me: networked games, mice, etc. The XBox itself is really PC-like.

If one kicks the bucket - I bet it will be because it has turned into the other.

My only problem with consoles

[Elwood P Dowd]

even though there are PC exclusive online games that I love to play, I'd rather be playing them on Xbox Live.

On a television? Without a mouse or keyboard? Obviously, more work is put into more games for consoles. The best writers are all probably employed on console games. Perhaps many of the best engineers and designers work on console games. However. You have to play them with mittens and bottle bottom glasses.

I need that like I need a broom shoved up my ass.

Some day, consoles will work with high res displays (for less $ than a PC setup, please) and will have more precise input. I dream of that day.

Re:My only problem with consoles

[Mechanik]

Without a mouse or keyboard?

The PS2 and XBOX both have USB support. Both have third party keyboards available. Adding mouse support would be trivial. I am unfamiliar with the input methods available on the Gamecube, but I assume there is no technical reason why this could not be done there as well.

If lack of keyboard and a mouse is all that is keeping the PC gaming scene alive, then consider it on death's door.

There is nothing stopping console developers from supporting keyboards now. And given that you can get PS2/XBOX to USB adapters, mice are not hard to follow, if they really want to support them.

The reason the developers don't support them however is that there is a stratification of the user base, i.e., since these add-ons do not ship with the console, not all users have them, and developers tend to service the lowest common denominator of their user base where at all possible.

I see it as a pretty easy thing to convince the consumer that paying a little extra for a console that comes with a keyboard and a mouse. You can bet your booty that if Microsoft were to create an XBOX (or heck, to remove the chances of stratification altogether, let's say XBOX2) bundle that included a keyboard, a mouse, and an version of Internet Explorer with MSN Messenger and Windows Media Player, it would sell very well. Having an extra computer in the house is never a bad thing, both from a gamer's point of view, and from the point of view of any parents that might be holding the purse-strings of young gamers (it keeps the goddamned kids off of the real computer so that daddy can surf for pr0n in peace).

Hell, I don't see why they wouldn't want to throw in MS-Office while they were at it. It's not like they give a shit about the anti-trust ramifications of it. And then what have you got? A kick ass console that is also a really cheap computer that will do 95% of what the average computer user does. Guess which console Mommy & Daddy are going to decide to buy for Junior then?

Anyway, back to the original point... From there, support in the games for these peripherals would come. If everyone has it, then it's stupid for the developers not to support it.

So, I think the days where the input devices argument still holds are numbered. If a chump like me can come up with a plan to increase console sales by edging into the conventional PC markets, you can bet MS has already been planning it for a long time now. They just have a lot of patience, and the fat bank account to allow them to bide their time.

The question is whether or not this is a good thing.


Mechanik

Re:My only problem with consoles

[WaKall]

"If everyone has it, then it's stupid for the developers not to support it."

This is a really good point, and is pretty well-exhibited by xbox. The addition of a NIC and HD to the console as stock features was a great idea. Every game can count on them to be there, and it means that more developers are likely to use them (and for the HD, I mean beyond the purpose of a memory card - like saving large replays/data sets). Whereas with Sony/Nintendo, comparatively few games do online support, largely only first-party games.

Re:My only problem with consoles

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Good points. The reason that FPS sucks on consoles is that they don't have mouse controls; they don't have mouse controls because the developers can't count on the users having mice, since the consoles don't ship with mice.

I love FPS. However, I also am a Mac-guy, so, frankly, my choices for FPS are limited--I had hoped that a console would give me options that the Mac lacks. While true for many genres of games (RPGs and Fighters), my favorite genre of FPS sucks balls on a console. How people can play Halo and MechWarrior on an Xbox with two joysticks is beyond me--maybe it takes brain re-wiring that I just haven't done yet, but it's like patting your stomach and your head at the same time in different directions.

That all boils down to: I'll give my left nut for a console that ships with a mouse/keypad equivalent, so the FPS console-game developers can count on it being there and develop for it. I would sooner buy a new console than a PC just for gaming, and I don't care from which side of the Pacific it comes from: if either XBox 2 or PS3 come with a mouse, they can consider my dollars theirs.

Re:My only problem with consoles

[bugbread]

Dunno about MechWarrior, but Halo is pretty easy on a gamepad. My assumption is just that you're very used to the mouse and keyboard combo, so it's a new approach to you and hard to handle.

Re:My only problem with consoles

[GreatDrok]

I regularly play games on my projection TV (DLP so no worries about burn). I also play PC games on it. Picture quality isn't all that different, resolution and textures are better on the PC but consoles do OK too. Control, I agree though, keyboard and mouse are sometimes better than a console controller, I dearly wish that the PS2 versions of Medal of Honour supported my USB keyboard and mouse, some games do such as Half-life and Red Faction so I don't see why more console games don't support it.

The resolution of a machine like the PS2 is limited yes, the graphics hardware is actually capable of SXGA resolution, I can run X11 on my Linux PS2 kit at 1280x1024 16 bit. However, for games it is likely that higher resolutions would eat up too much memory or other resources to make the game playable. I don't see why they don't provide progressive output more frequently though, some games do so why not all?

I think the real question is how much longer will PCs be able to claim the high ground of better control and higher resolution? I suspect the next generation of consoles will close the gap so that it is virtually invisible at which point the need to constantly upgrade a PC to play the latest game will become a thing of the past.

Question, what is the deal with Halo on the PC? It is awful. Was the game this bad on the XBox? It is repetitive and the graphics aren't all that great (played on Athlon 2200+ with GeForce 4MX graphics card). I expected so much more....

Re:My only problem with consoles

[espressojim]

Geforce 4MX is a piece of crap card. That's equivilant to a Geforce 2. A Geforce 3 is a better card than a 4MX, and the xbox has a much better video card than the 4MX - it's roughly equivilant to a Geforce 3.5.

So, you have a bargain bin video card that doesn't support many of the rendering features of the game that many PCs and the Xbox do support. That would explain your crap graphics.

Re:My only problem with consoles

[Elwood P Dowd]

Geforce 4MX is a piece of crap card. That's equivilant to a Geforce 2.

MX. A Geforce 4MX is equivalent to a Geforce 2MX. Mildly better. There are plenty of things that a Geforce 2 GTS can do that beat the hell out of a Geforce 4MX.

Re:My only problem with consoles

[espressojim]

If it was equivalent to a Geforce 2MX, then wouldn't it be named a Geforce 2MX? :)

It's "the successor to the Geforce 2MX" line, but still not as powerful as a Geforce 3.

Upon further reading, I notice that it doesn't even have directX 8 support. Before, I just remembered that the card sucked. Now I know *just how much* it sucks...

Re:My only problem with consoles

[Elwood P Dowd]

Dunno about MechWarrior, but Halo is pretty easy on a gamepad. My assumption is just that you're very used to the mouse and keyboard combo, so it's a new approach to you and hard to handle.

And if that is your assumption, then you really don't understand why we're complaining. When people use a joystick for FPSs on PCs (and they do) they don't use it to replace the mouse. They use it to replace the keyboard. The mouse is at least an order of magnitude faster for aiming. You must judge (1) how far to move the joystick and (2) how long to hold it there. With a mouse, you must judge (1) how far to move the mouse. Muscle memory puts it at exactly that location. There is no angular distance that you would like to turn that takes more time than any other angular distance. If someone is behind you, the second that you notice it, they are in front of you.

Obviously, I could go on and on.

The joystick gives you all kinds of cool features that a keyboard does not. Keyboards are only completely required when you don't have voice chat. Otherwise, slap on enough buttons, and a controller can replace a keyboard..

Not a mouse. That can't be replaced by a trackball, a joystick, a touchpad, or anything else. Not for an FPS.

Re:My only problem with consoles

[GreatDrok]

Funny, it has absolutely no problems playing Max Payne 2 at high quality. The GF4MX420 I have in my system was cheap but it provides plenty of grunt for the latest games. I think the problem is with Halo itself, it is likely a poor port from the Xbox. Still, I think Halo is not that great a game, it is all a bit samey. I have pretty much given up on it and am enjoying Max Payne 2 now instead.

PC gaming will stay

[edwdig]

Online console gaming won't hurt online PC gaming. PC gaming is really good for two types of games: FPS and RTS. FPS controls a lot better with a keyboard and mouse than with a controller, and RTS would be practically impossible with a controller (yeah yeah there was StarCraft 64, but it sucked).

Consoles used more for games that play better with a controller than with keyboard & mouse. Online racing & fighting games will be a lot better on a console.

As for the online voice chat, I actually think that's a disadvantage. Anyone play WarCraft 3 online? A large part of the chat during games is some guy who sucks cursing out someone else trying to pass the blame for the team losing. You don't want to hear the majority of the chat; most of it is mindless bickering.

Re:PC gaming will stay

[Babbster]

You'd be entirely right except that Xox Live has less anonymity than PC online games (apart from MMORPGs). Every time you play a game on Xbox Live, you're logging in with the same name. Thus, if you're an ass during games people can easily avoid playing with you in the future, or slap a mute on you so they don't have to listen to the garbage. As a special bonus, it is possible to get booted off the network if an XBL admin happens to be in a game where someone is particularly vile - rare, true, but possible.

Re:PC gaming will stay

[Zevets]

I think when voice chat is best that you have to press a button to talk. It makes a huge difference by cutting out the junk. Otherwise you have some guy blabbering about the lag, calling you a cheater when you own him, calling you a loser when you get owned etc. This is a major problem with xbox live, socom2 especially and some teamspeak (teamspeak.org) servers.

If you have ever played a strategy required game such as Americas Army(americasarmy.com, just released 2.0a), with voice chat and a good clan it allows for a lot of depth and a lot more fun. You can coordinate attcks, alert snipers to enemies and altogether improve the experience.

Re:PC gaming will stay

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the online voice chat, I actually think that's a disadvantage. Anyone play WarCraft 3 online? A large part of the chat during games is some guy who sucks cursing out someone else trying to pass the blame for the team losing. You don't want to hear the majority of the chat; most of it is mindless bickering.

At least it's better than my experiences with XBox Live... 12 year olds talking about thier penises.

You only problems with consoles are not even real

[Mike Hawk]

I don't know, right now the display thing is a wash as more and more XBOX games utilize HDTV support. And 40" of TV goodness even at standard resolution kills 17" of monitor for my taste anyway. I thought it was about the gameplay and not the graphics. Or is that only certain threads?

As for controls, another wash IMHO. You don't need controls as precise when everyone else isn't cheating their arse off. And everyone else is using that controller too, so its an even playing field. Hey, everyone has the same "computer" in this case too so noone has the new ATI Uber 9000 while you are stuck with a Voodoo3.

I don't know, I see both sides. I personally just signed up for a free 2 month trial of XBOX Live and I'm pretty stoked so far. My little bro invited me to a game of RtCW while I was playing Amped 2 offline. That was amazing. And the voice, wow. Actual for reals teamwork with strangers.

The console might not be over the top yet, but everyday it inches closer. Just wait until next generation...

The Reality

[ziggles]

The thing is, although XBox Live may be a great service and very much liked by those who use it.. There are relatively few who actually do use it. I don't have numbers, but it seems to me that online gaming has a very small penetration in the console world so far. I just think it's important to remember things like that when hypothesizing the death of PC gaming.. silly me, right?

Re:The Reality

[ziggles]

The state of online console gaming as it stands now is the most obvious indicator of where it will go in the future. It's pointless to predict something in the future without analyzing the facts of where we are now. Then again Gamespy is no stranger to pointless "journalism."

Besides you dont pay for playing in PC

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why SOCOM 2 is beating Xbox live fair and square is simply because you can use any broadband adapter to play it (just like you did in the dreamcast) xbox live cool as it may be , requires a subscription service and people just hate expending extra money to play.

Not to mention the fact xbox live doesnt work in a good number of countries yet (including Mexico which is where I live).

PC gaming is much more advanced than console gaming anyway I cant even begin to compare everquest or second life to any console MMOG specially in terms of modification and user made content. Even half life beats UT for the xbox in pure gameplay simply because you cant play any of the outstanding MODS the people have made for those.

Re:Besides you dont pay for playing in PC

[AlexMax2742]

The latest numbers I've seen show Rainbow Six 3 beating SOCOM 2 in sales.

Also, did anyone notice how SOCOM 2 only owrks with an official Sony online adapter? They droppsd support for other network adapters. Why? SOCOM worked with other online adapters. Seems like Sony took a page from the non-Xbox-Microsoft's book for some reason.

And honestly in terms of MMORPG's, who bought Everquest OA? Almost everony I've talked to (PS2 fanboys and haters alike) said it blew, while a greater majority of them like Phantasy Star Online (though most of them say 'screw consoles, get lineage 2 when it comes out'). I'm personally looking forward to True Fantasy Live, hated Everquest, and liked PSO, but that's just me.

Re:Besides you dont pay for playing in PC

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

PC Gaming unwell?

That's unpossible!!!

Re:Besides you dont pay for playing in PC

[Shrubber]

It's easy to say people hated EverQuest Online Adventures, but loved Phantasy Star Online. They're very different types of games. Sure they're both RPG type online games, but that's about where the similarities end. There are still a lot of people playing both, enough people are playing EQ:OA to justify an expansion just released in November.

I do like PSO, but I do NOT like the fact that I have to shell out a monthly fee on top of the XBox Live fee in order to play it. If more games start doing that I see a definite problem for the XBox's online gaming survival. I don't mind paying one price to play (presumably) all of the XBox Live capable games online, but if I have to start paying a second fee to individual games I simply won't do it.

The advantage PCs have over Xbox Live?

[Gothic_Walrus]

Cost.

Really...isn't $70 a year for the ability to play games online a bit much? I know that Microsoft runs and maintains the servers, but the price seems high to me. Look at all of the PC servers that are free to use. Hell, millions of people use Battle.Net every day, and it's still free. Maybe I'm just being ignorant, but I don't see where the $70 goes to.

Compare that to PC gaming: with the exception of MMORPGs, very few games require a subscription for online play. Perhaps more importantly, most games let anyone that wants to set up a server for online play. With the XBox, the company has to pay to use Microsoft's servers or drop the online feature.

Now...which one makes more economic sense: buying a game like, say, Counter-Strike for the PC for $30 and getting free online play and updates, or paying $50 for the XBox version plus another $70 for online play?

Until XBox Live becomes free (which it most likely won't anytime soon), the PC will have at least that one major advantage over the console.

(I know I've ignored the PS2 and Cube; the Cube's online ability is ignored for the most part and I've got no experience with PS2 games online.)

Re:The advantage PCs have over Xbox Live?

[bigman2003]

Well, it's only $50. The $70 is the starter kit that comes with a headset, and MechAssault.

Yes, it is worth the $50.

Just like cable (or satellite) TV is worth paying for (for a lot of people) even though you can get stuff free over the airwaves.

Re:The advantage PCs have over Xbox Live?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the advantage comes when (like me) you have CS on xbox, Rainbow Six 3, Ghost Recon, PGR2, Crimson Skies, and whatever else i might buy in the future. I can play all of them online for that one subscription fee.

Big deal?

Well on my PC i am playing Final Fantasy Online and DAOC. The monthly fees for those two cost as much as an annual Xbox live subscription every month!

I have CS on my PC, but I am SOOOOO sick of cheats that i prefer playing on my XBOX now.

Re:The advantage PCs have over Xbox Live?

[wolf-]

Some of us still use bnetd despite blizzards arrogant assault on the project. We dont WANT to connect to Blizzard's Disconnecting, Buggy, Spam filles servers to have a friendly Internet match.

Same goes for the other games we play round the offices (multinational).

Re:The advantage PCs have over Xbox Live?

[bugbread]

XBox for $200, $70 for live = $270 for the ability to play online for a year.

Computer for $1000, $0 for live = $1000 for the ability to play online for a year.

Don't get me wrong, I have a computer and love it very dearly, but when I used to play games on the computer I kept having to spend $200 on a video card here, $100 on RAM there, and it was a pretty pricey hobby. Since getting an XBox, all I need to buy are games; the hardware never needs to be changed. My computer costs have also dropped, because for regular usage, I don't need a better video card, more RAM, or a bigger HD.

Actually, that's not quite true. Thanks to MP3s, there's always room for a bigger HD.

Re:The advantage PCs have over Xbox Live?

[Squidgee]

Ok, let's go through the prices, shall we? =p

XBL: $50 a year (no, not $70 a year. $50. Goto Xbox.com if you don't believe me).
Xbox: $179.99

-Decent- Gaming PC: $999 (and this garuntees...maybe a year or two of games before an upgrade. I won't even go into the price of a good gaming PC) Gaming Video Card: ~$250-$300 (not neccesary initially, but it will be in a year or two)

So, let's do the math. If I don't get a good video card right away (and we all know you will need one at some point), I can have about 16.38 years of Xbox Live before I run up to the cost of a -decently- performing PC. Now, this is a PC I will need to upgrade in a year or two. And it won't play games with the same reliability as my Xbox will.

And, I get all the wonderful integrated features of XBL with my Xbox. Wait, now what was cheaper again?

And yes, I know most people have PCs. But, most people's PCs are no longer capable of laying top of the line games; and many people's never were capable to begin with.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Elwood P Dowd]

And 40" of TV goodness even at standard resolution kills 17" of monitor for my taste anyway.

Well, I disagree. I need much more resolution. And if we're talking about HDTV, we are also talking about a *lot* of money. Apple Cinema Displays are in the competition.

You're right, it's about gameplay. My desire for resolution is because certain types of gameplay are totally impossible without lots of visual information being presented to the player. Imagine Civ 3 at 512x384.

As for controls, I don't care about an even playing field so much as a better connection to the machine. Your point only applies to multiplayer FPSs with untrusted opponents, and not that well.

I don't know, I see both sides.

Me too. That's why I want the better resolution and controls on the consoles *now* damnit :)

Problem is...

[inkless1]

PC Online gaming seems to be dying. It's easier and easier to get a new game these days that have multi abilities and no real servers to connect to. If it's not Counter-Strike or some blockbuster everyone else has, your chances of finding a decent online game goes down significantly.

One of the best online experiences I had was playing PSO on the Dreamcast. Friendly people for the most part (until, I guess, cheating sunk in) and you could always find a group to play with.

$70/year is a bit steep, but so is $70/month to setup a server.

Re:Problem is...

[obeythefist]

It's always been that way, though. I can never find online servers for Maxis Massively Multiplayer Sim-Brick Online 2004.

The other secret, hidden hope for PC gaming is the open source world. Americas Army, although not free as people might like it to be, is quite a good game, and it would be impossible to achieve on a console. I can't see any open source console games surviving very long, either. Linux and OpenGL, and the power of the open source community could well create a utopia of inexpensive online gaming unreachable by the console market. Just an idea.

Re:Problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

$70/mo. for a server is steep. Consider hosting games on an extra pc... With broadband you can have several players at once depending on the game and your broadband connection. You could run a dedicated UT server for the cost of your broadband and a cheap PIII.

Of course if you are playing a game that requires tons of bandwidth, then I guess $70 may be at the beginning range of dedicated leased servers.

Re:Problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? PC Online gaming is dying because a few games you want to play that aren't popular are hard to find servers for? That's some fancy city boy logic. (which of course gets modded up)

See I would judge by how many people are playing online. And it's an awful awful awful lot. More so than last year, and more than the year before that.

So by my judgement it's not dying.

And What games are you talking about? I mess around with just tons of online games and there's always people to play.

Have you tried gamespy? Also try IRC.

Re:Problem is...

[inkless1]

Lemme try to rephrase this. Looking at gamespy stats (inaccurate, but as a baseline) out of the games that have more than 1,000 players online far less than half came out last year, and just about half came out in the last two years. Both numbers are in the single digits.

Now compare that to all the titles that came out in the last couple of years with online play. If not declining, it's massively saturated and is clearly difficult for new games to carve out a niche. Need a sample? Just got XIII. Virtually no online PC servers. The PS2 version? Already forming clans. Need another? Freelancer. Want more? Go start hunting down recent reviews, which have actually started to downgrade ratings of titles because the online play is hindered by lack of players.

And compare that to consoles, where new online titles stand a better chance of gaining audience, online, there is more diversity (FPS games have to make up something of 95% of the online PC crowd and there's about 0% online sports activity), and usually less cheating and security concerns.

Re:Problem is...

[inkless1]

http://fragism.com/prices.phtml

16 player CS server = $80/mo. Fragism isn't cheap, but they are good.

An average DSL connect is good for about 4-8 players on most games, and naturally is only up temporarily unless people want to sacrfice a box and port.

I love the idea of a lot of people starting servers on their home connections to alleviate the problem, but most people just don't bother.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[obeythefist]

The whole reason console gaming is killing off decent gaming as we used to know it (high resolution, brilliant shading and shadow effects, high polygon counts, all leading towards ultra realistic games) is because of the price. If consoles were as expensive as PC's (in terms of entry level), consoles would have died so very long ago.

The low quality of console games is holding back the entire industry. Console games that are released on the PC are very often exactly the same as the original console version, with no enhancements to take advantage of the sheer power of a real computer.

So now you want the low quality of a console game, but you're happy to buy a 40" HDTV monitor, so that you've also paid around the same as a decent PC rig for the privelege?

I'm curious. Please name a console game that wouldn't be better if developed to take advantage of the superior capabilities of a properly equipped PC. (Even one that has a bunch of little USB controllers plugged in for those who don't understand mouse and keyboard).

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. An xbox with a 733P3 is more properly equiped than all of my computers excluding my servers. My friend who still plays computer games gets by on his p3 600. So what's the manditory maximum lifetime for playing games on a PC? 3 years? 2? With as much as it costs, and what little it returns, no wonder it's looking a little sickly.

Take you 17" monitor and cram it. My 21" Hitachi is too small to really enjoy games on. At least the way I can enjoy them with a consol. It's so easy. A recliner, or a couch with a bunch of friends.

Better graphics didn't carry the day, and only an idiot would expect them too. Consols are more comfortable and more social. Compared to AT LEAST those graphics take a back seat.

Next year when I have to decide between a DLP, plasma or infocus system for my home entertainment viewing pleasure, that relaxation quotent is going to hit a whole new level.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Mike Hawk]

Well considering you have only made some vague unquantifiable claims about quality can you first Please name a PC game that wouldn't be better if developed to take advantage of the superior capabilities of a properly equipped console?

Kinda arbitrary huh?

Ok, how about you name a console game that you think would have made a better PC game IF it had some things that the console version could not possibly provide. This way at least I'll have a chance to know where you are coming from.

I'll give you a hint about just how far off base you are on graphics quality alone: RtCW for XBOX actually has graphical enhancements that could not be included in the PC version. In fact your PC game you just bought is likely backward compatible to TNT2 whereas every XBOX game is targetted specifically at that set of hardware. Which one do you think is being held back by technology?

Niche market?

[ScorpiusFan]

I think PC Gaming will become more of a niche market or hobby, as the lure of sales from console games has attracted many publishers, but I don't think PC gaming will die away completely, since consumers like myself don't mind spending money for non-standard systems.

I think the reduction of commercial PC game publishers may be a good thing, since hopefully this should provide a better market for quality developers to keep making titles they are passionate about, much in the way the PC game market had developed at one point (id software, the old 3DRealms, old Raven, Westwood Studios, many others).

I don't mind paying higher prices for PC games as long as they have quality and can be customized.

Currently I am enjoying Bioware's Knights of the Old Republic on my expensive laptop. Despite the lack of customization, the game is a quality title, and has so much variety that extra modding or customization isn't necessary.

And I'm able to play a bunch of my old PC games on this laptop thanks to DOSBox and Windows Compatibility mode in XP.

Now, if console makers introduced a mouse and keypad to their PC-like systems then I may be tempted to buy a console, since I will face spending at least $1000 or more to upgrade for Doom3 and Half-Life2.

At least card and PC prices should drop some more while I wait for those titles to be released.

Re:Niche market?

[waytoomuchcoffee]

The problem is, people will have computers, and want to actually do something with them. Because of this, there will always be games for PCs, and it will be mainstream.

Take a look at Final Fantasy Online -- you can be in the same world whether you have a console or PC. However, on a console, to play the game at all you need an optional hard drive, and to play well, you need a keyboard (which basically means you converted your console into a crippled PC at this point). The game works better on a PC (you can play it at higher resolutions for example), but it works well on both.

Re:Niche market?

[espressojim]

For people bitching about upgrades costing so much money...why not buy best bang for the buck hardware, and save yourself some pain?

Everyone upgrades to a processor that has 10-20% more speed, with 2-3x the cost. Plot out the best speed/$, and buy that. Do the same with the video card. Buy into architectures where you know the roadmaps for the processor/motherboard have room to upgrade.

Example: I got a Nvidia 2 motherboard that goes to *at least* an athlon 3200+, and got a nice 2100+ for $80. I got 1/2 a gig of ram for $60. The motherboard, case, PSU, etc were $250 (ok, it's expensive because it's a small form factor - shuttle XPC.) I got a geforce 4 4200 for about $150.

If I need a 50% processor speed increase, I'll buy an athlon 3200 when they're $100. If I need a newer video card, I'll buy a radeon 9800 when the next gen video card come out, so it'll be $150-200 (depending on how impatient I am.)

So, I can't play *every* game in 1600x1200. I can play them all comfortably at 1024x768, and many at 1280x1024. You can't do that on a console either - they're producing shitty frame rates at 640x480. But it doesn't cost me much to own the PC, and upgrading will not cost me much either.

I figure I do one 'refresh' every 18-24 months for $300-$400. I do one new build about once every 4 years (and I still save the cases, PSU, hard drives, CD-ROM, etc...so those rebuilds don't cost more than $600...)

Where is this $1000 comming from? Are people ordering new PCs once a year?

Re:Niche market?

[JolieBlanc]

I beta tested the PS2 version of FFO, and I have to say -- there's nothing nicer than sitting in a comfy chair with a simple USB keyboard and a PS2 controller, whomping monsters. It was great fun. Having played Everquest and DAoC on the PC, I can relate that it was a lot more uncomfortable to do an 8 hour stretch at the keys than 8 hours in my living room.

It's accessible for beginners, and fun. Not to mention the fact that my 2 year old PC can't even break double digits on the FFO benchmark. So yeah, maybe if I shelled out $800 to build a brand new state of the art machine...The graphics would be a little sharper. But who cares? I can have just as much fun with my cheap PS2 and my IKEA armchair with the extra comfy footrest.

Yeah, right!

[Anonymous Coward]

the open source community could well create a utopia of inexpensive online gaming unreachable by the console market

And a heard of feral cats might rise up and sieze power in the midwestern states, forcing all men to endure back breaking slave labor cultivating catnip while the spin yarn till their fingers bleed.

Other things that are theoretically possible but not going to happen:

I could spontansiously tunnel to the other side of the universe and find I'm on an alternate Earth where everything is the opposite only Jerry O'Connell has won an Oscar for Kangaroo Jack, and I and my double are reading slashdot.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Elwood P Dowd]

You seem to have completely missed my point. Or were you attempting to respond to the same person that I responded to?

Re:My only problem with PC Gaming

[BladesP9]

With PC's you have cheaters who like to mod their games and then get into the multiplayer environment and proceed to ruin it for everyone who is out to just have some fun in their limited free-time. At least with Xbox live I know that I'm in a fair environment where I don't have to worry about someone playing with a hacked version of the game that allows them to cheat and ruin the fun for everyone in the game. This is true with every single online game I have ever played on my PC or Mac including Red Faction, Myth, MOHAA and now Halo. I doubt very much that after my latest experiences with multiplayer Halo via Gamespy that I'll ever play a non-console multiplayer game ever again. As for the TV argument... Halo and MOHAA look and play great on my Xbox on my 53 inch regular TV as well as on my plasma screen. And I don't have to have my face 5 inches from the screen to play it either.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Have Blue]

One other advantage to a console: It's hard to use a mouse and keyboard while slouching on the sofa.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[obeythefist]

Well this is easy. Let me explain.

Ok, how about you name a console game that you think would have made a better PC game IF it had some things that the console version could not possibly provide.

Any console game not optimised for the latest and greatest rendering API's (DX9 or the latest OpenGL features). Reason? It would essentially be the same game but with better graphics. I understand this is a real cop-out answer, so I'll embellish a little. A few people have already mentioned that consoles desperately need a newer interface. Controllers are simplistic and clumsy. I know, I've used a controller, and it doesn't compare to the analog precision of a mouse. First person shooters, an entire genre of games, are therefore better on PC's, where they can take advantage of higher resoltions, more detailed models (due to the polygon counts). A P3/733, no matter how optimised, can only handle a finite number of polygons. Your average PC today has a lot more than that.

"Ahh," you say, "but my console is always good and I don't need to upgrade it every two years like you do with your PC!" You bought an X-Box, why? What was wrong with your NES? Not fast enough? So you upgraded to a newer console? How often do they make you buy a new console? Do old games always work on your new console? I know most old games work fine on new PC's.

I understand that graphics quality alone may not be enough for most people, and that's a valid point. But when I see the ugly, chunky graphics on a blurry television pimped out by the X-Box, I really feel like slapping the guy who's telling me how great those graphics are. I think they've never seen the crisp image of a well rendered scene on a properly equipped PC. Take some time out and look at the quality, it is, as an american once said, a self evident truth.

Yes, some games are compatible with TNT2 settings. Great! But I choose not to lower the settings on my games to that level. I turn up the detail. I know you console guys don't get a setup screen, so you probably didn't know to look for one.

Mike Hawk Fucks Dogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Everytime I see something this asshat has posted it makes me wanna vomit! Please shut up now, idiot!

killer features

[evilWurst]

PC gaming still has something that assures its survival: mods, patches, and expansions.

1 - patches - if you can't patch your online console game, and it gets hacked, you're totally screwed. This is gradually being fixed by putting hard drives on consoles.

2 - expansions - again, something being gradually addressed by consoles adding hard drives. Still, expansions for console games so far rarely stray from the extremes - they're either very very small, or they're so huge that they cost as much as a new game.

3 - mods! User-created mods! The online gaming killer app! This is still the exclusive domain of the PC. Console makers still refuse to give the users this level of power, and if they *did* give us that much power, we'd start writing software for their systems and consoles would become equivalent to PCs.

Mods vastly increase the useful lifespan of a game by keeping the experience from stagnating. They add replay value, sometimes years of replay value (remember good old Teamfortress?).

Re:killer features

[Squidgee]

1 - Patches - You actually can patch any LIVE! enabled game; and all of the ones I've stuck in have said "This game needs to be updated" or some such thing, and it does it right there for me. It then restarts the game, and I'm ready to go. Patches, but 100 times easier than on a PC.

2 - Expansions - Ever tried XBL? Well, we got your expansions right there. I've got a new map and plane for Crimson Skies. About 20 new maps/gametypes/mechs for MechAssault (honestly, there's a y ton of additons for MA. I don't know how many, but at least 15+). AND, most of these expansions are free, whereas the majority of PC expansions cost you $19.99. In fact, the most costly XBL expansion (aka Downloadable Content) comes to a grand total of $4.99 for five different items in one "pack". Expansions on consoles are hardly rare, nor are they abnormal; in fact, they're released more often, and at shorter intervals than the PC could ever dream of.

3 - Mods - The PC has consoles on this one. While you can, say, make maps for Tony Hawk, you can't mod the game. And most console games don't even come with a map editor (well, a lot of PC games don't either; they're usually released a while later), and one is never released. I was just yearning for a map editor for Crimson Skies yesterday, actually...

So, yea, the PC has us on Mods. And that's it. Overall, online gaming on a console is lightyears ahead of PC gaming. The combination of friends lists, voice chat, easy patches and constant expansions, and all the other great (and mostly lag-free) perks of console online gaming absolutely trounces its big brother (PC Online Gaming). Mind you, this is mostly XBL; when it comes to PS2 online gaming, well, that's another story.

The PC does trounce PS2. =p

Re:killer features

[xankar]

remember good old Teamfortress?

Remember?
I still play it!

Re:killer features

[Danse]

Patches, but 100 times easier than on a PC.

Easier than some PC games, but a lot of them either have autoupdate features that work pretty much as you described for the XBox, or you just download and run a single file. Easy.

AND, most of these expansions are free, whereas the majority of PC expansions cost you $19.99.

Actually, most extra content and even expansions are free on the PC too. You tend to only get charged for the really major ones.

The combination of friends lists, voice chat, easy patches and constant expansions, and all the other great (and mostly lag-free) perks of console online gaming absolutely trounces its big brother.

Again, it depends on what you're playing and what software you use. Games like Tribes2 have the features you're referring to, with the exception of voice chat, but there are several good voice chat apps out there to make up for that. Then we have apps like All-Seeing-Eye that give us the friends lists and the ability to see who's playing what games and then go join them. As for the "constant expansions", I think the PC still has the console beat in that department. We not only get expansions from the developers, but all the user-created expansions as well (which far outnumber those of the devs). Even if only a fraction of those are good, that's a ton of content.

Re:killer features

[Kyouryuu]

I'd post what you said, but then it would be redundant. ;)

I would add to your list option #4 - levels. Between new mods and new levels, PC online gaming has everything over console gaming.

My hypothesis is that ancient games like Half-Life continue to do well for one sole reason - there is a constant influx of new material. Most of this material comes not from the company that made the game, but rather from fans and hobbyists. This creates a whole community of builders and developers that adds an enormous creative dimension to the game. And I think you'll find that, with arguably no exceptions, that all popular PC games have this element. And the ones that don't fade into obscurity. People don't want to play in the exact same world day in and day out. They need new experiences to rejuvenate the game.

Currently, this is all-but-impossible with console gaming. They can't build levels or write mods for console games - they are slaves to the companies to release such tools and additions. The Xbox is a bold step in the right direction with the hard drive idea, but still has a way to go. I think that console developers try to inject rejuvenation by making their games very open-ended such that in participating with a team or party that you have, in essence, the players generating new experiences. But still, there's nothing like UnrealEd on the console scene. And until tools like that become commonplace, along with the ability to share new materials easily, PC gaming will continue to be the home of multiplayer gaming.

Who cares?

[Craig Maloney]

Y'know, I think the only people who give a crap about the state of PC online gaming vs console online gaming are the people who write editorial pages for game magazines, in the hopes that their insight into the whole matter will give them fame, acclaim, and the phone number of the hottie in second hour class. Meanwhile the world will keep spinning, the gamers will keep gaming, and nobody will give a flying fig newton what the state of online gaming for their console or PC is, until they can't play X game online anymore. End of story. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Mike Hawk]

Once again, I thought we were taking game quality and not graphics.

You wasted a whole lot of breath replying to arguements I was never going to make.

Now please, once more, specifically, what game would have been better as a PC game, and why?

PCs advantage over Xbox Live?

[Zevets]

The advantage is price. If you have a PC, and want to play online games, you need a good computer. Many slashdot readers have good computers, but to play the new releases with average detail settings you need to spend at least $1000 not including the monitor for a good gaming computer that you will need to update at the absolute least once every three years. You should upgrade once every 18 months.

A console costs $200 not including TV. Three years of $50 play comes to $150 plus the additional $20 for the first year and starter kit comes to $370. Games cost roughly the same so we dont need to include that.

$1000-$370=$630

That is why you play on a console online.

Re:PCs advantage over Xbox Live?

[Gothic_Walrus]

It's fair to say, though, that most people buy PCs for more than one reason. Even if you have a gaming PC, you'll probably use it for other things as well - Internet browsing, downloading music, or even *gasp* working.

What other purpose does the XBox serve than as a gaming machine (and DVD player)? It really doesn't have one.

While I didn't really intend to, I wrote my post ignoring the start-up costs. The XBox is only cheaper when you leave out the initial costs...but odds are if you have an XBob with a broadband connection for XBox Live, your PC can also handle online gaming.

Re:PCs advantage over Xbox Live?

[BigKato]

Don't forget you can also use the XBox as a jukebox by ripping your cd's to the 10 gig hard drive. You can get a lot of songs on there and still have plenty of room for game saves.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Mike Hawk]

Kind of a tangental question, but since this is a thread strictly about multiplayer I'll ask. Do you actually play Civ 3 multiplayer? I tried it an it was kind of the ass. I love the single player and always have going back to Civ the first. My memories of my x286 are fuzzy now but I douby I played that at more than 640. ;)

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[obeythefist]

Every game. Why? Better control schemes. Better resolution. Better audio. More customisability. More functionality. These are all aspects of the game quality. Starcraft:Ghost if you must have an example, although an example is not necessary for you to understand.

The console cannot provide the same quality as a PC. You have the same gameplay, but with better visual, auditory and tactile attributes. This is why the PC can provide a higher quality than a console game.

PC Gaming will remain forever

[slubberdegullion]

You have to remember that not everyone is a "hardcore gamer" who considers his or her PC to be a $1000 gaming machine. Many people buy their PCs for more serious reasons, with games being just an added bonus. To someone who bought a computer for movie editing and picked up some games as a diversion, arguments that they should "switch" to a console are meaningless, and will come off somewhat like an argument that they should switch from a car to a bike because it offers the same horn-blowing capability at lower cost.

Re:PC Gaming will remain forever

[Deliveranc3]

Nevertheless a midrange video card with no other applications beyond gaming (unless you get a FireGl etc) costs more than an entire console.

Re:PC Gaming will remain forever

[Danse]

Actually those cards are pretty useful for 3D modeling. I have a couple friends that are really into that.

Re:PC Gaming will remain forever

[espressojim]

Only now that current consoles are getting closer to the end of their lifespan and some cost $99 (which is the cost of the middle of the road video card. Radeon 9600 SE is $83 on pricewatch.com....)

When those consoles were new, they were $299, which is the cost of a cutting edge video card - the video card that only the die-hard enthusiast (penis wagger) needs to buy. The fastest processors and video cards simply aren't required to play many video games, unless you're a) a sucker b) need 400 FPS.

Re:PC Gaming will remain forever

[Deliveranc3]

A videocard with anything like the same lifespan as a console? We aren't going to be using SE in 2005

argh.. WITH linebreaks:

[Recoil_42]

i'll bite: first of all, console gaming doesn't mean low resolution. HDTV means 480p, 720p, and 1080i. that for the most part matches, and at 1080i, beats, the resolutions that most people's PC monitors are at.

couple that with a 50" inch 'monitor', and the visual 'richness' far surpasses that of PC gaming. and just try to convince me that you don't enjoy a nice comfy couch over an office chair.

as for controls, once you get used to it, it's actually alot nicer than using a mouse and wasd, simply because movement is analog, and you don't ever have to look down to find hotkeys -- all the controls i need are millimetres away form each other, and in very sensible places.

its also much more realisitc -- aiming is much harder, and while most people complain about this, i think its just a matter of how games are made -- in most PC fps's, it takes 10-50 shots to kill someone, because everyone is always so precise. ergo, very little people play, for instance, tom clancy games on PC, versus more arcadey games like CS and BF1942.

but on XBOX, for instance, Rainbow Six 3 is the most-played game online, followed by Ghost Recon: Island Thunder. Because aiming is so much more realistic, one or two shots can kill, and so more people play these games. otherwise, you get into 'death ballets' where everyone dances around everyone else trying to hit them the required 10-15 times.

the real added bonus of this is that headshots are harder to get, and skill is therefore rewarded more.

(don't even bother with ps2 though imo, because the analog sticks are too short -- xbox has longer sticks, meaning better precision, hence the popularity of FPS's on it.)

as for RTS's, i agree. consoles can't do them at all. but you know, just as well as i, that even PC's can't do RTS's right. its just absolutely pointless to command one unit at a time (or even small groups) of a large army, in real-time. a mouse is designed move one, not 500, objects at a time.

Re:argh.. WITH linebreaks:

[damiam]

HDTV means 480p, 720p, and 1080i. that for the most part matches, and at 1080i, beats, the resolutions that most people's PC monitors are at.

A TV capable of 1080i will cost more than a new computer, and there aren't many games that can take advantage of it. Even the XBox's GeForce3.5 is quite underpowered compared to modern PC graphics cards, and the other consoles are worse. So consoles can't render 1080i (which has a pixel count roughly equivilent to 1600x1200) smoothly in most modern-looking games. My Radeon 9700 PRO can barely keep up with Morrowind at 1600x1200. Could the Xbox render Morrowind at 1080i with decent quality settings? I doubt it. (I don't know if Morrowind even supports 1080i on the Xbox, I don't own it).

As for RTS's, yeah, neither PCs nor consoles are perfect at them. However, while you can't efficiently command 500-member armies with a mouse, most RTS's don't allow 500-member armies. The max army you'll see in Starcraft is probably around 90 units, and the cap is much lower in WCIII. Those armies can be managed pretty well.

Re:argh.. WITH linebreaks:

[Recoil_42]

I agree completely with your post, believe it or not. ypu're absolutely right. but remember, the article is about the future, not the present.

Plasma HDTV's have beaten moore's law in the last few years, halving in price each year, and showing very little signs of slowing down.

As for the XBOX's GPU, yup, i agree with that to. XBOX is what i would consider the 'transition' console -- it has the support for it, just waiting for those games which have the available power left over to use it. The next generation of consoles will have further support for them (hdtv resolutions), and as those games sell more copies because more "hardcore videophile gamers" will demand them, that by xbox3/ps4/gc3, i predict it will be standard.

as for morrowind, could it be rendered at 1080i with decent quality? i would guess so. with consoles, you have greater control over the hardware, and can therefore produce more efficient code. iD, for instance has stated at least twice that the XBOX will be able to handle doom3 at 30fps with very little loss of extra detail, maybe sacrificing some dx9 features, etc.

its all up to code efficency, though. morrowind is notoriously unefficient.

oh, and btw, to see the games that support HDTV resolutions on XBOX, check here:
http://www.hdtvarcade.com/xboxlist.htm

now, as for RTSs, why do you think you see those caps? why is there a limit at all? its because of the limits of a mouse in controlling an RTS. so yeah, the limits are artificial, in order to mask the deficiencies of a mouse. am i complaining? no. they have to do that, we haven't found a better solution yet. but the problem remains.

Re:argh.. WITH linebreaks:

[damiam]

now, as for RTSs, why do you think you see those caps? why is there a limit at all? its because of the limits of a mouse in controlling an RTS.

Partially, but also the limits of the brain. No human can micromanage 500 units. If all you'd do with an army that size is order them around in larger groups, then it makes very little sense to make a game like that. Simplifying the play by reducing army sizes makes for a much more tactical game.

Also, unit caps help keep players from building indefinately, and never actually attacking. Obviously, that's mostly a newbie problem, but it does help force them to attack and liven up the game.

Re:argh.. WITH linebreaks:

[(54)T-Dub]

You have some very interesting points. Cheaper Plasma HDTVs will even the playing field as far as display goes, but graphics capabilities will always be dominated by PC's because of upgradability. The day a new console hits the market you can put together a faster PC. Sure you can optimize for a console because you know exactly what hardware you are dealing with, but I think that this advantage is quickly lost to the breakneck pace of new video card development. And please keep in mind that an X-Box is simple a PC in a box. Of course Doom3 will be able to run on it, if I had a PC with the same specs (god save me) it would be able to run at 30fps at 640x480.

I would also like to point out that without PC gaming inovations like voice chat would likely take a lot longer to be realized. After all it wasn't a huge gaming conglomerate that created Roger Wilco. It was a small company who's idea was taken up by hardcore PC gamer clans. Even still it took years for a large gaming company to catch on. Having to rely on Microsoft or EA for radical inovation is foolhardy and pointless.

I know this was mentioned in the artice, but Mods illustrate my point even further. I mean the whole Rainbow Six FPS swat style genre was made popular by a little MOD known as counter-strike. The WW2 genre that we are all sick of? I would venture to say that it was started by the Day of Defeat mod for Half-Life.

I also think that we had a pretty off year as gaming is concerned and it was felt hardest in the PC market. This was a year of expansion packs and delays for the PC market. Desert Combat (based on the craptacular BF1942 engine), Call of Duty (*yawn* another WW2) and Homeworld (buggy online play) were, imo, the only good "new" games to hit the PC this year. As a results I bought a gamecube and a PS2 this year in order to fill my gaming apetite. All of this makes it a very poor time to talk about the "end of PC gaming". I feel that in one year everyone will be singing quite a different tune as their consoles gather dust and people rave over the latest HL2 mod and Doom 3.

Re:argh.. WITH linebreaks:

[Stray7Xi]

Large Monitors (TV-OUT), Gamepads and Couches are all compatible with the PC.

Oh wait, you seem to like consoles because their limitations. No mouse means people can't aim... you say its good, I say its bad. :P

There are lots of games that make it harder to aim and not a simple click-and-kill. (Gunwobble, Cone of Fire, etc)

Two Forces

[superultra]

There are two forces working against PCs and for consoles.

First, the consumer. Yes, your PC has higher precision in FPS games. Yes, your PC gets higher FPS. Yes, your PC can display games at a higher resolution. Does the 26 year old bachlor who has broadband to have it (that is to say, porn) and PS2 and Madden 2004 give damn about FPS and 1600 pixels and 128mb of gpu ram yadda yadda yadda? Nope. It matters to us because, well, it's always mattered to us. Because we're PC fanatics. But better FPS and higher accuracy doesn't necessarily mean more fun, it just means a higher FPS and accuracy. Whoopie. Personally, I've yet to see anything on PC that eclipses the strinking visuals in titles like Viewtiful Joe, or Zelda, ICO, or Panzeer Dragoon Orta. Additionally, while consoles aren't existing within some kind of non-cheating utopia kingdom, it's a far better situation than the PC, particularly on Xbox Live. You only have so many credit cards for new XBL accounts, whereas IPs come as easy as power cycling your modem. Lag is typically better, as every player on XBL and in most PS2 games are required to have broadband. Most of these same games also require voice (which, granted and thanks to the seemingly shared low IQ on XBL, is sometimes detrimental) and have a built in unified awareness system (I know when my friend is online regardless of what game she's playing). Basically, the mainstream consumer is on the side of console onling gaming if they're on either side at all. It certainly won't be PC, which includes significanlty more hurdles to really play online than the console, even in the relative childhood of online console gaming. Path of less resistance, remember?

Secondly, if they don't already - and many of them do - I think publishers will prefer console online gaming to PC. There's more control there, even if it's through the Microsoft controlled XBL. Particularly with XBL, there's less liability. Some guy sexually harassing little kids? No problem, you have his credit card, not some untracable IP that leads you to a library or wireless hotspot. There's also financial control. It's much harder to charge for a roster update through a PC than it is on a console, when you've stored their credit card number. Whether this is good for the consumer is debatable, but I think the cards, which are predominately in the hands of the publishers, are definitely stacked against PC gaming. If there is any altruism, it's because companies like Valve and id have a certain spot in their heart for PC gaming, not because they see any financial reasoning to do so. If you think this is the norm rather than the exception, you're the only one still getting $15 off coupons to Amazon.com every week in your email box.

Face it: when it comes to at least racing and sports, consoles have quite easily dominated online gameplay (yes, I know how cool Live for Speed is). All that's left is RPG, FPS, and RTS, and I think console devs will be happy to leave RTS firmly in the grip of the PC.

I think what most people who've posted are doing is examing their own habits with regards to online gaming but have largely neglected to truly examine the entirety of the video game market. Sure, PC gaming will always be here and for some ungodly reason people will still be playing dust on CS, and PC online will most certainly for the next year or two to come what with Half Life 2 and Doom III on the horizon. However, I'm as enamored with the net integration in PGR2 as the article writer is, and I think it's a glimpse of what can really be accomplished with online console gaming. PGR2 not only meets PC gaming, but it smacks in the ass, trips it out, and has surpassed what PC gaming should have been doing this whole time. If PC gaming does survive, it'll have been done with the mantra "evolve or die;" and I think in many ways it will begin to resemble console gaming (i.e. Steam significantly resembles XBL).

/bow_head for moddown.

Re:Two Forces

[Txiasaeia]

Pro for PC: it's free. Get a game, have the internet connection (and seriously, if you use your computer for games, who doesn't have the net?), and you can play it for free. But hey, if you want to pay for your console, the high priced games and however many dollars per year to play online, be my guest.

Re:Two Forces

[BigKato]

I prefer iceworld to dust anyday. Why? Does anyone know why? I sure don't.

That will be changing now that both me and my roommate are both on Xbox Live and he just got Counterstrike. On Xbox CS, people actually communicate with each other because we all can. I've never had a mic on my PC CS and neither do a lot of people. I find the quality lackluster compared to XBL. Voices are often muffled and people can be just as annoying as people on XBL.
I just miss the chat via keyboard. And the UT 'headshot'.

Please offer iceworld as download. please

Re:Two Forces

[Danse]

Personally, I've yet to see anything on PC that eclipses the strinking visuals in titles like Viewtiful Joe, or Zelda, ICO, or Panzeer Dragoon Orta.

I've played Viewtiful Joe and Zelda, and seen a trailer for ICO. I don't think Joe or Zelda are anything special in the graphics department. ICO looked pretty nice though. But IMO, games like X2: The Threat, Lock-On Modern Air Combat, and Morrowind are far beyond anything you see on a console.

Lag is typically better, as every player on XBL and in most PS2 games are required to have broadband.

Most online PC gamers have broadband by now too, and even if some don't, it doesn't cause you to lag. That's mainly dependent upon the server.

Basically, the mainstream consumer is on the side of console onling gaming if they're on either side at all.

As I've said in some other threads here, that's the difference between console gamers and PC gamers. Both sides are looking for a different experience. PC gamers aren't bothered by the relative complexity of a PC versus a console. Most of us have been playing PC games for years, and it has only gotten easier over time. Console gamers are casual gamers. They like to sit on the couch and play games with their friends. It's more of a social thing than PC gaming. PC games aren't trying to provide that same experience. PC games tend to have more depth, complexity, and customizability.

The important thing to remember is that both sides have their strengths, and some people (myself included) play both. I love PC games. They are the most interesting and entertaining games out there for my tastes. But I still enjoy playing sports games or fighting games and such with friends on my PS2. Nothing like whooping someone's butt in Soul Calibur 2. So, in the end, I don't think either one will win over the other. PCs will always be around because they have many uses and are extremely flexible. Consoles are becoming more PC-like all the time, but will probably never quite get there because the console makers like having control over things. Even if fewer PC games were made in the future, I wouldn't even consider it a bad thing. It might result in a higher percentage of good games. Maybe all the crappy movie-based games and stuff would just go to the consoles.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Mike Hawk]

Again, vagaries. You challenged me to provide an example, yet you could not meet your own challenge. Pleae provide a specific example, with reasons, so that I can better understand your point of view.

Not again...

[bersl2]

"Apple is dying."
"BSD is dying."
now
"Computer gaming is dying."

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[WaKall]

Let's assume that some games play better with a specific gamepad than with a mouse/keyboard. I think this is a safe assumption. In fact, you could argue that knowing what the gamepad will look like is useful in and of itself - you can build on-screen help images, similar to what nintendo did in Zelda64, ZeldaGCN, and Metroid:Prime. Nintendo has always done a great job of making control schemes match the controller perfectly, and vice-versa. So, I would argue that those Zelda games would have been less-accessible on a PC, namely because they couldn't flash graphically-simple suggestions to you not knowing the gamepad/keyboard layout.

Now, let's assume that we took such a game and released it for PC. We'd either have to ship it with the gamepad (more cost), require the user to buy it separately (smaller potential customer base), or dilute the control scheme to the smallest common denominator. Odds are that the third one would prevail.

All the consoles now have two analog sticks and force-feedback. Can a keyboard/mouse simulate this? They can't, to my knowledge. For example, FPS's use a mouse that fulfills the role of one stick, but then they use 4 keys to replace the other stick. What if I want to introduce a game feature that only conveys in force feedback? It would be great for multiplayer games on the same display - it can signal player1 about something without clueing in player2.

Yes, consoles evolve slower than PC's. However, because of this, developers can focus more on gameplay and less on disparate hardware, driver compatibilities, and still achieve adequate flash and eye candy because they are building for a well-known platform. The publishers probably spend less on tech support too. Hell, they might even QA the thing before they publish, because patching would be harder.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Deliveranc3]

You can buy a controller for PC which has many more features than any console controller. Furthermore you can purchase a model which you like as opposed to one which the company decides on. Thirdly they are cheaper. Now why you ask don't most games take advantage of this amazing interface? Because THEY ARE STILL not as good as a mouse. Also why would you pay money every month for a service which should be included in the price of a game? I have an X-Box but I modded the crap out of it.

Bottled Water and The Currency of Convenience

[superultra]

Assuming that a decent enough WinXP PC costs $500, after the cost of an Xbox I still have about 6+ years of XBL before it meets the cost of a PC. Last time I checked, PS2 online gaming is free after an initial investment of the network adapter.

Even assuming that this hypothetical person already has a PC, the whole "free" thing is overrated anyway. PC online gaming does cost, although not in a dollar amount but in time units. Get the game installed. Try to play. Crashes. Download new graphics driver. Low FPS. Try driver before newest one, works fine but causes static noises with the sound driver. Get new sound driver. Fiddle with screen res and graphics settings. Runs fine. Crap, I need a patch for the game. Download that. Ok. What? Now I have to download a different map to enter this game? Ok, got that. What the hell? How is this guy sniping me from across the map and through two walls? And why do my DVDs on videos show up gray when I play them on my computer now? Grrrrr....!!

Yeah, I think I'll "be your guest," thanks. When I bought Project Gotham Racing 2, I placed the disc in the xbox and within the bootup time of the game I could have been racing online if I wanted to. No patch installs, no screwing with drivers, no fiddling with settings. Shrink wrap-to-online-gaming in less than 2 minutes tops, and that's being extra careful putting the disc in the tray. PC online gaming, then, is not "free." It costs significantly in the currency of convenience and time. Path of least resistance remember? Why do people drink bottled water when water fountains are everywhere? Because it's just easier. I can't carry around a fountain with me. Why not just buy a 2 liter of pop and bring a cup instead of buying a can from the machine? Why not make my own coffee and bring that to work instead of stopping by a coffeeshop to pay for it? Sometimes, "free" does cost more.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "high priced games" since, unless you're meaning that it's significantly easier to pirate games on the PC than on console, they cost about the same last time I checked.

Re:Bottled Water and The Currency of Convenience

[Txiasaeia]

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that playing PC games requires endless tweaking. UT2003 last year was flawless, even without patches. I completed KOTOR without a patch. Just finished Age of Mythology: Titans without a patch.

All this "endless tweaking" is a myth - if you have a properly configured computer (I can go from blank HD to fully up and running incl. office suite and various utils) in about 35 minutes. I haven't had a problem with hardware OR software in years.

And when I said "high priced games," I meant console games that cost 5-10$ CAD more on day of release, and sometimes 10-20$ more after a few months.

Finally, if you can afford a console, chances are you have a PC too. You're paying twice for basically one appliance. Why bother?

I understand what you're saying, but when games like KOTOR and Deus Ex: Invisible War for the XBox ship with show-stopping bugs (bugs that can't be fixed with patches, mind you), then I'd imagine that you'd be much more frustrated than simply paying for the PC version, investing a little bit of time (i.e. waiting for a patch) and having a fully-functional product.

For the record: I have a GBA SP too, and wouldn't replace it for the world.

Re:Bottled Water and The Currency of Convenience

[Corngood]

UT2003 last year was flawless, even without patches.

And those three CDs installed instantly like a console game?

Finally, if you can afford a console, chances are you have a PC too. You're paying twice for basically one appliance. Why bother?

PC and Gaming PC are not the same thing. My PC can run visual studio 2003 and 3ds max at the same time, but I can't play Halo, DX2, or most other new games at a reasonable speed. My xbox can play these same sort of games just fine.

Re:Bottled Water and The Currency of Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that playing PC games requires endless tweaking. UT2003 last year was flawless, even without patches. I completed KOTOR without a patch. Just finished Age of Mythology: Titans without a patch.

That's your experience. I remember trying to play FF7 on my pentium back a few years ago and the installer wouldn't run. I emailed tech suport and didn't get any response. When I finally got the installer to complete it turns out the game didn't like my 2d + Voodoo2 combination and the game played like crap. I don't want to buy top of the line hardware to make sure I don't have compatibility problems when a console costs $150 and just works.

Then there's online games like counterstrike or UT. When I was big into them, you had to always download newest versions of CS (beta 4, beta 5, 1.0, 1.1) because the servers would force you to. Plus there's all the anti-cheat technology like punkbuster. Not to mention the need to use GameSpy or some other server browser because the in-game one sucked. Don't even get me started on the cheaters in UT.

Maybe games these days are better, but I wouldn't know. I got sick of all that garbage.

Finally, if you can afford a console, chances are you have a PC too. You're paying twice for basically one appliance. Why bother? Because I use my computer for computing and my game machine for games. Silly concept, I know, but hey. I didn't buy this $2000 machine to play games with. I do audio production, web design and programming, email, etc on the computer.

When I play games, I like to sit on the couch with a beer and possibly my girlfriend or another friend and have fun. I don't want to be hunched over my keyboard alone spilling beer all over my expensive equipment while my girlfriend curses at me in the next room for not spending time with her. Furthermore, I don't want to waste 5 gigs on my hard drive for each new game, track down patches, get driver issues, learn a new keyboard layout for each game and all that bullshit.

Console gaming is just more fun for me. I have to deal with too much bullshit on the PC.

Re:Bottled Water and The Currency of Convenience

[Kyouryuu]

You bother because console games have greater variety. There are many console games that, for one reason or another, would just not work the same on a PC. And the same is true vice versa. But whereas the PC world is pretty much ingrained with FPS, RTS, and simulation games (despite having a ton more variety a few years ago), consoles have many puzzle games, third-person adventures, 3D platformers, kart racers, and other genres that - for some reason or another - are absent on the PC.

And regarding the price, console games are usually more expensive, but in recent months computer games have been catching up. Starting with WarCraft III, it seems as if the average price for a new PC game is right up there with the consoles at $50, when I remember it used to be $40 before. The good part, however, is that unlike consoles, PC games usually don't have a price-fixing entity behind them, so you see some retailers (e.g. Frys) offering obscenely low prices on even new games from time to time. :)

Unless you're a nut obsessed with squeezing every last FPS out of your video card, the notion that PC games require tweaking is nothing more than a myth. I haven't bought a PC game that presented issues in years.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Danse]

I consider that an advantage of the PC since I can use whatever kind of controller best suits the game when I'm playing on my PC.

Netcraft confirms

[macdaddy357]

Netcraft confirms PC online gaming is dying...

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"how about you name a console game that you think would have made a better PC game IF it had some things that the console version could not possibly provide. "

How about ANY first person shooters? Console versions can't provide any form of reliable controls. With PC games, you have (and need) per-pixel accuracy, with console games, you have a pad that can go in one general direction, and a stick that has the range of about an inch (compare to a gamers mousepad, which is often about the size of a laptop if not larger. froogle or google image search for dkt megamat, or supermat which people often cut to fit on their desk)

As for the second half of your post, Obviously the console games. There are still graphical enhancements being released for quake1. Lets compare that to a game that was released at a similar time(1996) oh, say, Tekken 2 for the Playstation 1. With quake, you can download a new client with new lighting added, more visual enhancements than you can name, texturepacks, and everything else needed to make it look like a modern game. With tekken2 you can do nothing at all, aside from boot up your outdated game at look at a load screen that might as well display some porn because its going to be up there long enough to squeeze one off.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Danse]

Easy. Deus Ex 2. They took a game that won tons of Game of the Year awards and dumbed it down to the point that it was playable on a console. Then they take the console version and slap it in a PC game box. The interface is horrible and clunky requiring far too many keypresses to do things like equiping a weapon mod or rearranging inventory. On the PC you just drag the mod onto the gun. Done. Then they botched the AI. Maybe because the XBox processor couldn't handle the load of a better AI. Who knows, but it was worse than the first game (after patches). Aiming is annoying with little thumb knobbies. It doesn't give you anywhere near the speed or accuracy of a good mouse. Maybe that's another reason they didn't bother with the AI, console players can't aim and shoot nearly as fast as PC gamers as a rule. Nor is it anywhere nearly as customizeable as almost all PC games are. I could use a gamepad if I wished on my PC, or a joystick, or countless other controllers. So even if you like the controller for playing this kind of game, you could have it on the PC.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Please name a console game that wouldn't be better if developed to take advantage of the superior capabilities of a properly equipped PC.

The problem is that it's so damn complicated to know whether you have a properly equipped PC or not. It used to be just a matter of Processor and Memory. Now you need a graphics card that supports the specific feature set that the game requires. Explaining to users why a GeForce 4 MX won't run Deus Ex 2 while a GeForce 3 will, for example, is a pain in the ass. (The GeForce 3 doesn't do a good job of it, which is odd because it should be about as good as the XBox's Nvidia card.)

How many PC games actually used the shader technology that XBox games used at launch? Not many, because they simply couldn't count on enough users having that technology. Even today, more than 2 years later, users moan in confusion at their supposedly fast machines being unable to play the latest games.

In fact, in contrary to holding back the industry, I think the XBox actually propels it forward. How many developers would actually bother with shader technology if the XBox didn't create a large pool of users they could count on marketing it to?

I still think PC Online gaming is better because of the potential to create mods. Computers are tools for creativity, consoles are tools for passive time-killing.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Danse]

So your argument is that you can't even compare the console to the PC really since they are focused on entirely different experiences. Consoles are meant to be social and casual, and the games reflect that. PCs are meant to be precisely suited to the user, and only the user. They are not social in the same sense as consoles. And since some people don't really get into tv and movies much they don't want to drop thousands of dollars on a home theater. They could by the ultimate computer for that kind of cash.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Danse]

PCs allow incredible amounts of customizeability. Windows knows what kinds of controllers I have. It shows me little pictures of them. I can program every button to do what I want. Then when I'm playing a game, I tell the game how I want it to work and it remembers that and CAN remind me what button does what if I forget. Many PC games do this.

What if I want to introduce a game feature that only conveys in force feedback? It would be great for multiplayer games on the same display - it can signal player1 about something without clueing in player2.

Well, first of all, you're not usually playing side-by-side with someone else as you are on a console. Even at LAN parties you generally have some space and you aren't watching the same screen, so it's a non-issue. Even if you must have it though, there are plenty of force-feedback mice, gamepads, and joysticks out there for the PC.

Hell, they might even QA the thing before they publish, because patching would be harder.

We do lots of things we otherwise wouldn't when we're forced to.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[obeythefist]

Here goes!

>Pleae provide a specific example
Starcraft:Ghost if you must have an example
>with reasons, so that I can better understand your point of view.
Why? Better control schemes. Better resolution. Better audio. More customisability. More functionality.

Basic comprehension is not always a talent for every person, I suppose.
I'll type this slowly for you, as you don't seem to be a fast reader.
If Starcraft Ghost was developed and optimised for the superior capabilities of the PC, all other aspects remaining the same, it would have had better graphics, better sound, the same gameplay, and a better control scheme.

What about this don't you understand exactly? Or are you just pulling my leg?

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is a lot of cross over, and home theaters don't demand replacement every couple of years. Hometheaters, by there very nature fascilitate a very different and more social experience. With stuff like Xbox HD and "live!" titles, that hometheater crosses over into a big chunk of that slick looking on-line gaming realm, bringing a little something that wasn't there before. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but you can have a slice of someone elses and your own. And maybe not too far off it's two cakes for the hometheater crowd and one for the PC.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Lathan]

I use an optical mouse with a laptop. Works beautifully =)

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Danse]

And maybe not too far off it's two cakes for the hometheater crowd and one for the PC.

You do realize why you believe that don't you? Have you noticed that consoles are becoming more and more like PCs with each new generation? Pretty soon it will be just a PC in front of your TV, albeit with crappy controllers. PCs have many other uses besides gaming, so games will always exist for them. People like me who enjoy both console and PC games will demand it. Consoles have their place, but it's for a different kind of game and a different kind of experience.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[bugbread]

You consider it an advantage that you can't use standard interfaces when sitting on the couch?

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually, there will probably be a pretty significant shift in all of gaming, but particularly PC games. It's pretty rare for a game anywhere to do anything very original, and especially PC games. The only area where I can see PC's retaining a dominant advantage is RTS, and a lesser degree turn based ones like Civ. Eventually the desire for richer in game experiences, and better context awareness (ducking, crawling, wall-hugging, transitioning to a fighting as opposed to a shooting system) in FPS and better controllers will give consoles an edge, especially since they frequently lend themselves to more social experiences anyway. Keyboards have a lot of buttons, but their controls have very few degrees of freedom. Not every game can come with a custome gamepad, and one that has to bow to the lowest common denominator will invariably need to leave things out. Where each console mearly has to perform within the limits of its generation, which is exactly the same as the other members of it's brand.

I can definately buy a future where the fun must have games are for consoles, because your friends have them and play them. Not being part of that is like not seeing the latest in movie, or hearing the latest it song. And the other diversions, are limited in their social aspect, and essentially scaled up versions of chess played online with perhaps a few people at a time.

A pick-up game of basketball, and chess in the park, and their digital domestic equivalents certainly can co-exist. But in the case of consoles, it's more an evolutionary growth, where with PC's it'd be more a pruning back.

This is all my own supposition of course.

Maybe more complicated...

[OneFix]

Proprietary games with centrally located servers (like everquest) are going to consoles...the LAN based MultiPlayer games (Quake, Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty) will remain on the PeeCee for the forseeable future...

There's a few reasons why...obviously, most ppl don't have more than 1 of the same console at home...many ppl have more than 1 PeeCee at home...or have friends with NoteBooks...then again, you don't have to pay for these online services??? which is a big hurdle for most ppl...why shoud I pay $50 for a game and then pay $10 or $20/mo for the privledge to play the game I just bought???

The other side of the coin is that companies like Sony & M$ have a hand in development and subscription models...some direct (like M$)...others more indirect (like Sony)...therefore, there is someone looking out for your experience and wallet besides the manufacturer (unlike the peecee)...

Then we've got the fact that many of the online games on the consoles have already made a name for themselves...names like "Final Fantasy", "Madden NFL", "Tony Hawk", "Sega Sports *", "EA Sports *", "Twisted Metal", etc...the fact that many of these are already established "favorites" makes it easier for them to sell their online features...

Of course, what may be less obvious, but equally at fault for this shift is the fact that most ppl are simply turning to the console for their gaming fix now...the PeeCee is no longer being used as a general purpose machine. We use consoles to play games, PDAs instead of address books, and play MP3s where ever we want (iPod anyone) and how we want (stereo systems, cars, etc)...

Actually, this is just the natural progression of the industry, I'ld expect this trend to continue into the future as well...

Re:Maybe more complicated...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't spell out the word "people," yet you take the time to write out "PeeCee"? (and use capitalization, quotes, and parenthesis) That annoys me. I no longer care what you just wrote.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you not grasp the fact that we might not be talking solely about first-person shooters and point/click games? Ever try playing a sports game, or a fighting game, or a driving game with a mouse?

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Anonymous Coward]

I think 'passive time-killing' is a bit extreme, you are actually doing something. TV is passive time-killing, games are semi-active time-killing. :)

Piracy and some other considerations

[Cochonou]

I think that utimately, piracy is what will kill (and in some extents, has already killed) the PC as a gaming platform.
Let's face the facts: About everyone has a personal computer at home, and a lot of people play games, but nobody buys them (this is from an European point of view). Compare this to the console market, where piracy is present but much less widespread (it often needs some hardware hacks that all the users aren't willing to do). How are developpers supposed to make money from this ?

But, you will probably say:
"I buy PC games, sometimes"
"Online games that require a cd-key defeat piracy"
You're right, but these facts did not protect the decline of the PC platform, and in a way they contributed to its impoverishment. Nowaydays, the only games which you can expect to be successful on retail are : High profiled games that people will buy because they've been waiting for them for a long time (Half-Life 2, etc...) or online multiplayer games. In a short, RTS or FPS.
PC used to be a wonderful platform for gaming, because the diversity of the games available was formidable. Turn based games, combat flight simulators, adventure games... Sadly, this is becoming less and less true.
Hopefully, some developpers/publishers aren't ignoring the PC platform yet, releasing their games on multiple plaforms including PC (example: Worms3D is available on PS2, NGC, XBOX, PC and Mac) but I wonder for how long...

In a word: No

[Psychochild]

As someone running an online game, there is one thing that will set the PC apart from consoles in the online arena: niche games. I can make a reasonable (if lean) living off of running Meridian 59 for a few thousand players. There were probably more people playing Phantasy Star Online (PSO) on the Dreamcast, but that got shut down while M59 continues to live on. M59 is able to offer a serious PvP game (which is a very niche product) for a much more select audience.

One benefit of the PC is that it's easier to develop games for it on a limited budget. Console development is expensive, starting with the development kit you have to buy for the cost of the entire budget of some indie games. Therefore, most console games are very expensive to make, and selling less than 50k units is considered terrible. On the PC side of things, you can make a game that will target a few thousand players and be profitable. So, it's easier to "take risks" on the PC.

I expect to see a rise in independent games in the online medium on the PC. Our company's next project is for the PC (and hopefully Linux!) because the costs to develop the game are cheaper. A look at Puzzle Pirates shows a cool game that would never make it as a console game. It's really unfortunate, seeing as how Puzzle Pirates is a great idea and a fun game that most likely wouldn't push the millions of units to make it truly profitable on a console.

So, in summary: online PC gaming isn't dead. I expect to see the larger companies like EA follow the dollars as they always have. But for true gameplayers, things will probably look better after a short while.

My thoughts,

Re:In a word: No

[inkless1]

No offense meant, but according to your FAQ:

"There is one company in Korea that has a legal license from 3DO to run a Meridian 59 game server. That license will expire when the current license year term ends.

Currently, there is no other legally running Meridian 59 game server."

I'm not sure one Korean server is evidence that PC Online gaming is alive and well. But good luck all the same.

Re:In a word: No

[Psychochild]

Ah, we need to update that. :) That was speaking of other international servers that were running the game from the old 3DO days.

There are servers in the US and Germany currently. My company, Near Death Studios, Inc. owns worldwide rights (purchased from 3DO) and runs the U.S. version of the game. We also have a German licensee running a German version of the game.

We've been quite busy with the game lately, updating the old software rendering engine to a more modern hardware rendering engine with neat features like dynamic lighting. You can see some of the screenshots at Warcry News, which show some nice before-and-after shots of the game with the two rendering engines.

My point still stands, however: M59 would be dead today if it were only a console game. It simply does not have the numbers to make it as profitable as larger companies prefer. The game focuses on a niche (hard-core PvP combat) that a core group of people think is lacking in other games; however, this core group is not large enough to be of notice to console publishers.

My further thoughts,

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Danse]

I consider it an advantage that PC games let me control the game the way I want to. Consoles don't.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Danse]

Keyboards have a lot of buttons, but their controls have very few degrees of freedom. Not every game can come with a custome gamepad, and one that has to bow to the lowest common denominator will invariably need to leave things out.

IMO, that's why console games tend to be oversimplified. PC keyboards do have a lot of buttons, and I think that gives me quite a bit of freedom. I can remap them to my flight stick and rudder pedals, or pretty much any of the hundreds of other controllers out there and play the game in a way that is comfortable for me. Can't do that with a console.

I can definately buy a future where the fun must have games are for consoles, because your friends have them and play them. Not being part of that is like not seeing the latest in movie, or hearing the latest it song.

I can see such a future as well. I simply see console games as a casual semi-social activity. PC games aren't trying to provide the same experience. They go for depth and customizability. They are intended to be played by yourself, even if you're playing against others online. They allow you to have more freedom. They even allow you to create your own content in the form of mods and new levels and such. They're so much different than consoles, and have such different goals, that I'm not even sure it makes sense to really compare them. Apples and oranges and all that.

I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that the Xbox was a PC!

Er...

[Anonymous Coward]

(1)Player: OMG WTF!!!!!1111 h4x0r!!!!!!111

we're in great shape.

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[Stray7Xi]

maybe you can't, I can...

I use my keyboard/mouse frequently while laying on either side, on my stomach (most of time it's like this) or on my back. Gamepad doesn't work as conveniently in all these positions because I lose some control when I'm using my elbows to support my body.

My roommate does it reclined all the time at his computer.

I'm guessing one of the problems a lot of people have is the mouse since they're used to their mousepad/desk surface. Mousepads are so flimsy they can't be used on non-sturdy surfaces. I use a hard cover book (wuth a nice texture, not the glossy kind), it works great. Plus I get the added benefit of always having a dictionary handy. ;)

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes console degrades Pc gaming.

Look at the brotherhood of steel outrage.
[url=http://fmf.knightcommand.net/index. php?chapter=27_things_about_fobos#intro] Dark Underlord's Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel preview[/url]

Yes and No

[Polarism]

If companies continue down the path of exploiting a path until it is long dead and beaten into the ground, with less and less innovation... then yeah it will die for a little while.

It won't ever truly "die" though, not once a few technological leaps and bounds are cleared, namely learning how to interface with the brain and developing a worldwide wireless broadband network. I believe these two things will radically change our world in ways not even imaginable at the moment.

But enough theory, my main point here is that the current business model is flawed. Sure it makes a bit of money on the short term, but there is no innovation, no growth. Just one stagnant title after another and once in awhile getting something worthwhile out of the deal.

Take Freelancer for example. Great SP campaign, leaves you open after it's over to do what you like. Pretty ok concept, and pretty ok online play. Main problem? Lack of true innovation.

Anyone can make a space shooter. Not just anyone can make a space shooter which incorporates a full RTS, FPS, *and* Flight engine all into one, which has yet to be done (as far as I know, and at minimum in an acceptable fashion).

Re:You only problems with consoles are not even re

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Let me ask you this--when you finish playing the game, are you a better person than you were when you started? If not, I consider it passive. Now, if you're an 8 year old, understanding how a video game works probably enhances your logical abilities. If you're a 30 year old addicted to building level 50 characters in Everquest, I doubt that enhances any of your cognitive abilities.

So, yes, I exaggerate, but not really that much...

Anyone remember...

[tabby]

Total Cost of Ownership?

That is why I no longer have windows servers & only play games on my XBox. Sort of ironic.