Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
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.
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).
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
There are two forces working against PCs and for consoles.
/bow_head for moddown.
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).
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