Online Consoles Marginalizing PC Gaming?

MattW writes "The gist of this AP/Miami Herald article seems to be that consoles going online will mutate the MMORPG space. Already, there is word that PC game development is withering, even though as a preferential PC gamer I see the best games ever. Is the console destined for superiority, or will the ubiquitous need and superior user input of the PC keep it as a viable game platform?"

Comments

Console vs. PC

[BWJones]

Well, there is always going to be the camp that would prefer to play games on their "PC" simply because they do not want a separate game box or they just don't play many games at all except for the occasional exceptional title. For instance, my work takes up most of my time (80-90 hours/week) so I really don't have much time or interest in playing games, but when Halo came out for OS X..... :-) Well, lets say productivity dropped a bit on the weekends, but I really don't have much interest in purchasing a game console.

I suppose however that the console market may eventually become the place for the pre-eminent titles especially given the kind of hardware that will be going into the next generation systems (G5s in the next Xbox?) and that PC titles will become ports. Of course we did see this approach with Halo, but only because MS screwed it up for us by purchasing Bungie, thus delaying the launch of Halo for Mac/Win and killing it all together for Linux.

Re:Console vs. PC

[seaswahoo]

I'm part of that group. I occasionally feel like playing a game (Rise of Nations, Age of Empires, etc. and YES, Solitaire/Minesweeper :P), but I don't feel like it's worth spending the money on a dedicated system considering I wouldn't be using it that much.

Re:Console vs. PC

[deathazre]

I'd personally rather play on my PC because of the extra control that having a keyboard and mouse gives you. There's only so many buttons you can put on a controller, and a mouse gives you an accuracy in just about anything that involves aiming that a joystick cannot and will never be able to match.

Re:Console vs. PC

[ferralis]

Absolutely, the PC will be around for a long time due to its extreme flexibility if nothing else.

However, I believe that we'll see many more games that work on the console and work incredibly well on the PC as well... kind of a "yes, the 'rabble' can play, too" in a way, although I have a feeling the consoles will be catered to more and more over time. After all, one must follow the money.

Still, I believe that as long as PC's are appreciably faster and featureful (and of course they will be- it takes more effort to stay ahead of the curve, and greater flexibility) all will be well.

My vision is that long-term OS game engines supporting multiple platforms including consoles will take over the world, and that those of us with PC's will be able to "run games" much like MUDS of the 90's and today but with rich 3d and eventually VR-like capabilities.

Who knows, with Maya et al, maybe that day will be sooner than I had thought. :)

Re:Console vs. PC

[baudilus]

I saw this debate coming a long time ago, and I saw consoles winning. The reason is the hardware - if you're developing a game for the Xbox, you know everyone that has an Xbox will have the exact same hardware, and see your game just as everyone else will. PC titles will always have hardware issues because different people have different hardware. One person may see things smoothly and clearly while another will see them as very choppy. When internet play is involved, I'd like to thing I'm owning the newbie because of my skill, not my PC.

I personally prefer PCs, but more and more people are moving away from the computer for things they can get elsewhere. Oh well.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that there will always be two camps- While the Console side has dedicated hardware, making better use of what hardware it has, as a class, there will probably never be the equivalent of the 499.00 add in video card to keep a console on the bleeding edge- as a one purpose machine, there is little incentive to create a secondary market for upgrades.

Re:Console vs. PC

[k.ellsworth]

.... just thinking... new video card for my pc, more ram, a new mobo/cpu.... no less than $900... just to play...

my current machine is a celeron 2.4, 512ram DDR+ radeon 8500 is more than enough to work... but not for gaming...

a PS2, is a gaming machine... unblocked (with especial chip) less than 250 dolars... and runs all the games for it... no more ram isues, no DX dramas.

and for MMORPG, add the harddisk/network card for the PS2 ($120). and voila...

a game console, is a better price/benefit than a computer gaming plataform...

Re:Console vs. PC

[socram]

How are we going to play LAN games now? battle-net? i just can't see that working on consoles for now... plus, i just got a radeon 9700pro and i want to take the juice out of it ;)

Re:Console vs. PC

[grub]

Consoles have some nice features but I like my games with a keyboard and mouse, just as nature intended.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Skater]

One thing - for me, the constant concern about video drivers, new video cards, faster processors, etc. is a turn-off to PC gaming. I understand that can be an advantage (only upgrade what you need to), but still it's a hassle.

The console systems have an advantage in that everything is set and the game is written for the console, which should remove any compatibility problems. I find this appealing.

Disclaimer - I don't own any consoles and rarely play PC games - my most frequent game (once or twice a week) is Doom, in part because I know my computer is plenty fast enough to run it smoothly under X Windows.

--RJ

Re:Console vs. PC

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Mouse and keyboard combinations are available for the PS2 that I know of and I believe that there are keyboards for the Gamecube.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Working 80-90 hours a week? Damn, you will be dead within 10 years.

Re:Console vs. PC

[AndrewCox]

For instance, my work takes up most of my time (80-90 hours/week) so I really don't have much time or interest in playing games

Perhaps if you didn't post on slashdot while you were "working", you wouldn't need to "work" 80-90 hours a week. I'm hardly awake 80-90 hours a week!

How do you have time to eat and bathe, let alone play games?

Re:Console vs. PC

[Deag]

the constant concern about video drivers, new video cards, faster processors, etc. is a turn-off to PC gaming.

my most frequent game (once or twice a week) is Doom

You are not kidding when you say you don't like to upgrade.

Console empires have come and gone since.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Mateito]

> There's only so many buttons you can put on a
> controller

You just aint trying hard enough.

Re:Console vs. PC

[thogard]

A common platform does help but game developers don't tend to take advantage of any specific feature. For example not one of the N64 games is 64 bits. They are all 32 bits. The graphics coprocessor can do some impressive thigns other than just open-GL but the only thing it ever does in any of the games is rotate a N around at the start of the games. If a developer makes use of a special feature, then they end up locked into that platform and it costs too much to port to a different platform.

There is also the lack of R&D money heading into the PC world. Half a decade ago the fastest computers were the servers and compaines would spend a fortune for the latest and greatest even if spending another $1000 would buy only 2% more CPU speed. The gamers got the advantages that the server R&D paid for but now go to your local computer shop and you'll find the "server" class machines are going to be slower than the high end game PCs. That will do some funny things to pc R&D funds over the next few years.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Maestro4k]

• I'd personally rather play on my PC because of the extra control that having a keyboard and mouse gives you. There's only so many buttons you can put on a controller, and a mouse gives you an accuracy in just about anything that involves aiming that a joystick cannot and will never be able to match.

This of course depends on what type of game you're playing. From what you say, I'm guessing you have FPS games in mind, and all of that is very true. However, when it comes to playing a RPG like FFX, the difference is minimal. I personally find it easier to control the game on a console than on the PC. YMMV of course. Not to mention that many developers use far too many keyboard commands and the interface gets so complicated the game's a bear to play. There is something to be said for simpler designs on user interfaces to games.

I think the thing is that there are quite a bit of games out there designed with the console controller in mind and they do a fine job making the controls work great. Then they port it to the PC and the game's annoying as hell to play without a gamepad. In that case I'd rather just stick to the console.

One thing no one ever mentions when the whole console vs. PC gaming debate comes up is whether or not you can actually get any gaming done on your PC. I know myself that I have a tendency to want to check my E-mail, oh and then there's a website I need to read, and I need to burn this CD, etc. until all of a sudden it's too late to do any gaming. If I go to the living room the PC's not there and I can actually forget about it and play games on my PS2 for hours on end. I actually game more since I bought the PS2 than I did before on my PC, even back when I was in college and had more free time. I really doubt I'm the only person out there who has found this to be true. Thanks to discovering this I'm pretty much just a console gamer, at least I'll actually play games and relax that way, and I'm on the PC at work all day anyway, not like I really miss being on it another 4-6 hours in the evening. :)

Of course it probably helps that I have never liked FPS games, and have found I prefer the cinematic-style RPGs on the consoles (like Xenosaga, with 22 hours or so of cinematics).

Re:Console vs. PC

[frankthechicken]

I think one thing that you forgot to mention is the standardized input device on the consoles, the joypad.

Although PC owners all have a keyboard and mouse, this a not a configuration that suits most game, with the exception of the FPS and the like. This means that the guarantee of the number of buttons, analog joypad etc., developers of games know how the input of a game will work. And lets face it, input is key for the enjoyment of a game. Without knowing how a user is going to play a game, controls may be too cumbersome on a host PC, there is no way to playtest and configure for every single type of controller(with the exception of a keyboard, though this is not ideal for arcade games, imagine trying to play Street Fighter). Whereas the console has a standard to aim for, which means the game can be designed around the controller.

For example, look at how Mario 64 worked, it embraced the controller and made moving an overweight plumber around his world feel natural. Look at Ape escape on the Playstation and it's use of the dual analog input, it was innovative and worked, but only because of the standarised input.

Control is king in the games world.

Re:Console vs. PC

[gjd131]

Some of the online games for PS2 can be used on a LAN, i.e. Socom 2

Re:Console vs. PC

[Cherveny]

To me the article is nothing more than reporters trying to "create news" when they have little to report on.

I see it along the same lines as:
1) PC Gaming is dead
2) Apple is dead
3) UNIX is dead ....continue ad nauseum....

Re:Console vs. PC

[jmpoast]

Now that consoles are coming out with hard drives, all they have to add is the ability to use a keyboard and mouse (which I don't think would be too hard) and the PC will lose most 'advantages' it has over the consoles. Of course people who still need the pc for other things will still play pc games but for the many people who don't use computers for anything other than email/web browsing, there will be no reason not to switch to consoles. I imagine for those non computer savvy people out there, buying a new console is much easier than upgrading computer hardware, and much cheaper than buying a new computer.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if you didn't post on slashdot while you were "working", you wouldn't need to "work" 80-90 hours a week.

I should not dignify this with a response, but.... At any rate, you have no idea of what our workflows are do you? Then why do you feel you can comment on something which you know nothing about? I suppose that is part of the problem with Slashdot. It is an easy forum for folks to spout off about "opinions".

I'm hardly awake 80-90 hours a week!

Look at what you are missing. There is a whole world out there and it moves even when you do not.

How do you have time to eat and bathe, let alone play games?

Efficiency of work and play combined with disciplined time management.

-BWJones

Re:Console vs. PC

[PainKilleR-CE]

my current machine is a celeron 2.4, 512ram DDR+ radeon 8500 is more than enough to work... but not for gaming...

I know Celerons are slower than the P4s in many cases, and that the Radeon 8500 isn't top of the line, but what games are actually not performing at playable levels?

I have a 2GHz P4 w/ 512MB DDR and a GeForce FX 5700 Ultra (bought it recently to replace a Ti4600 that took a dive, because it was fairly cheap and used the same drivers), and haven't found a game yet that isn't playable at good framerates.

I found that I can keep playing games on both platforms while only doing minor system upgrades on the PC every 2 years or so, with most of the money I used to spend on upgrades going to a new console or more games. Then again, with the fairly low number of interesting PC games coming out over the last year or so, I really don't have a lot of new games to test my system out with, either. On the other hand, I'll probably pick up UT2004 tonite and see how it goes (given that UT2k3 didn't run at all when I bought it after the demo worked great).

I understand the preference for console gaming based on the stable platform, but the idea that a gaming PC needs to be top-of-the-line is antiquated for all but the most die-hard PC gamers looking for the absolute top framerates at all times. I'm certainly not worried about losing a match online because my framerate is only as high as my refresh rate.

Re:Console vs. PC

[LarsWestergren]

One thing no one ever mentions when the whole console vs. PC gaming debate comes up is whether or not you can actually get any gaming done on your PC. I know myself that I have a tendency to want to check my E-mail, oh and then there's a website I need to read, and I need to burn this CD, etc. until all of a sudden it's too late to do any gaming.

Um, so your problem is that you get distracted from your gaming productivity by things? My problem tends to be the reverse. I sit down by my computer intending to write that important essay or whatever thing I have been putting off, but somehow my mouse slips and I start (Baldur's Gate 2, UT2004, Halo, whatever).

"No! Bad computer! Oh what the hell, just a little bit then.... Ooops, is it midnight already?"

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd personally rather play on my PC because of the extra control that having a keyboard and mouse gives you. There's only so many buttons you can put on a controller, and a mouse gives you an accuracy in just about anything that involves aiming that a joystick cannot and will never be able to match.

IIRC the Atari Jaguar controller had several dozen buttons. Agree, though. The control issue is central not only because of comfort but also in terms of game design. The console's controller is a bottleneck for complexity.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this argument is that computers can be used for much more than gaming.

Let's take my home computer, for example. It has an Athlon 2500+, a Radeon 9600 Pro, 512MB DDR RAM, an 80GB HD, and a couple of optical drives. However, most of that (some of the CPU power, some of the memory, the HD, the optical drives) is required (or otherwise very useful) for a lot more than just gaming. Considering that, having to pay much more than $300 every couple of years to keep your computer reasonably powerful for gaming in and of itself is a liberal estimate.

Rob

Re:Console vs. PC

[ruhk]

I don't understand this attitude at all. Controllers are just peripherals. Given that they have a slowly standardizing interface (heck the PS2 has USB and the Xbox has mutant USB of a sort), you should be able to get all the control you want on any console. On top of that, all the modern consoles have configuration modes that come up when you boot without a game. This seems like a very easy problem to solve.

I'm the proud owner of a Thrustmaster HOTAS/Cougar, quite possibly the sexiest stick-and-throttle set ever to be released for the PC. Its a USB device. Let's just imagine a future console's input interface allowing for a 110 button controller, with 10 axes. Sure, the average game pad (like a PS2 controller) would only use 16 buttons and four axes. But under this scheme, I could attach any USB controller (like my Cougar) and make full (or near full) use of it. Most games would be written to use far fewer than the maximum allowable controls. This, however, would allow for more games to be played effectively on consoles without having to dumb down the controls (or to give the player a choice between dumbed down 'console' controls or a richer, more complex 'PC' style control scheme).

Further, such a setup would allow for migration of controllers to and from consoles, easily. Steel Battalion has a sexy, beautiful controller set (though not as sexy as my Cougar!), which I wouldn't mind having for playing mech style games on my PC.

Meh. Perhaps I'm asking for too much. I still want Windows to see all game controllers as subsets of a ridiculously over buttoned, over axised uber game controller, so I wouldn't have to pick just one controller for each game. That'll never happen.

Re:Console vs. PC

[PainKilleR-CE]

Not to mention that to be "hardly awake 80-90 hours a week" means that you'd have to sleep 12+ hours a day, which is hardly normal, unless, of course, one were to count a week as only being 5 days.

Personally, I only work a 40 hour week (unless you count unpaid lunch and driving to and from work, all of which accounts for another 2-3 hours a day), and I average 6 hours of sleep per day during the work-week (which is an improvement for me, though still less than "normal"), leaving me with about 90 hours awake from Monday to Friday, not counting long nights on Friday. This means that I have about 50 hours that I'm not getting paid for, and roughly 35 of them are actually mine to do as I wish. Beyond that, there's a 48 hour weekend with 12-20 hours of sleep.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Tenareth]

I play on the PC because of better graphics, more indepth gameplay, better controls, and ability to add content to the game after-the-fact.

Even the newest Games on the consoles are "amazing" when compared to older console games, but to me... still mega-grainy looking.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

However, when it comes to playing a RPG like FFX, the difference is minimal.

"Like FFX" is the key phrase. The difference is minimal because that particular game was developed with multiple platforms in mind. Think "lowest common denominator".

Try to port something like Neverwinter Nights to a console and you'll see just how "minimal" the differences can get. Or if you want a real-world example, just compare Deus Ex to Deus Ex Invisible War.

One thing no one ever mentions when the whole console vs. PC gaming debate comes up is whether or not you can actually get any gaming done on your PC. I know myself that I have a tendency to want to check my E-mail, oh and then there's a website I need to read, and I need to burn this CD, etc. until all of a sudden it's too late to do any gaming. If I go to the living room the PC's not there and I can actually forget about it and play games on my PS2 for hours on end.

I have the opposite problem; I can't motivate myself to go "jack out" since I know the console can only play games. I like the ability to stop working, drop into a BFV game for 10 minutes then exit and immediately resume. I like being able to check e-mail and read websites at leisure!

Re:Console vs. PC

[acidrain69]

I happen to play lots of games on a duron 900 and GF2mx. Where are you getting your $900 figure from. Your first mistake was buying a more expensive, less capable Celeron. AMD rules the low end chips. I just went to an Athlon XP 2000+ for about $70 (cheaper if you buy online, I bought local).

Yeah, it's a gf2mx, so I can't play it with all the pretty effects, but that doesn't mean I can't be competitive and have some fun with a decent game.

So lets break it down. $200 to play a console that ONLY does console, or $500 to use a machine that I can modify to my liking, use for work and play, has better graphics (TV is still stuck at NTSC unless you're willing to shell out $$$ for HDTV, and that TOTALLY shifts things back in favor of the PC), and can play mods, which are arguably a better value than the game itself.

Re:Console vs. PC

[haystor]

No kidding, everyone is playing Doom II.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

"...whether or not you can actually get any gaming done on your PC. I know myself that I have a tendency to want to check my E-mail, oh and then there's a website I need to read, and I need to burn this CD, etc. until all of a sudden it's too late to do any gaming"

Are you serious? You make it sound like gaming is work, a task that has to be performed. For 99% of the population it's the outher way araound. I find it hard to get any actual work done on my PC.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody fucking cares about you.

Re:Console vs. PC

[LarsWestergren]

I should add that one thing I have done which has greatly helped with this is double booting with Linux. Default OS at startup is always Linux, and there I have all my important files, programming and productivity tools. I can still get distracted by web surfing (like now...evil evil Slashdot...), but I can't start playing games until I reboot the system and start into my toy OS... you know the one. :-)

Re:Console vs. PC

[SlashDread]

I second you.

Question though: HALO is an addictive game, so they must have done something right. Excellent gameplay.

However, is anybody else bothered by the ripoff from Half Life ((HALI?)the game) and Ringword (the book series), into HALO? I guess its the One Microsoft Way...

"/Dread"

Re:Console vs. PC

[Maestro4k]

• Try to port something like Neverwinter Nights to a console and you'll see just how "minimal" the differences can get. Or if you want a real-world example, just compare Deus Ex to Deus Ex Invisible War.

I didn't mention PC -> Console conversions on purpose, what you say is very true. For whatever reason companies doing a console port of a PC game can't seem to figure out a way to do a decent console control interface. It can be done (IIRC, Max Payne was PC first, then went to console, but the PS2 version is quite easy to control, at least for me) but either a lack of knowledge of console UI, or a lack of interest causes it not to happen. I know it happens in both directions but PC -> console ports seem to suffer worse than the opposite.

The converse, Console -> PC, that I mentioned isn't just FFX. There are quite a few games that have ported over to PC and are easy to control on them too. Unfortunately there are still plenty that ignore the PC interface and aren't really playable without a gamepad either. (As I mentioned in my original post.)

I think it boils down to companies need to look at the target for the game (or port of a game) and spend time making sure that the UI is designed (or redesigned) to work with it. You can have a game that plays great on a console and the PC it just takes a bit of effort.

Re:Console vs. PC

[dthree]

Maybe this will help.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Skater]

Yeah - I can't see spending hundreds of dollars for a video card so I can play the latest game for 20 minutes and get bored.

Seriously: the last game I really wanted was Train Simulator. I played it for a couple weeks on and off, but I haven't started it in probably a year at this point. I was into Roller Coaster Tycoon for a while - same thing, but in that case it was problems with it locking up my machine that soured me.

I'm planning to switch my computers around so that I have one server and one PC, and the PC will dual boot between Linux and Windows, and it will have the better graphics card and faster processor, so maybe once I do that I'll get into gaming more. We'll see!

--RJ

Re:Console vs. PC

[Mr. Piddle]

This of course depends on what type of game you're playing. From what you say, I'm guessing you have FPS games in mind, and all of that is very true. However, when it comes to playing a RPG like FFX, the difference is minimal.

I think consoles are arguably a part of the deline of text-based gaming. Even in the mid-1990s I played graphics and text-command-driven hybrid games that were quite good. Do people still market Zork-like games, any longer? Or do people still think reading/typing/thinking is not cool?

Re:Console vs. PC

[deathazre]

Yes, I had FPS's in mind. Then you've got flight/space sims, RPG's, fighting games and such, which, yes, are much easier to play with a controller.

But the way I see it, a USB controller at $15 or $20 is a lot more affordable than a $200 console.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

I find myself in the opposite situation. I played consoles for years because I didn't have the money or need to upgrade my PC just to play games. I used to play the original Quake and Quake II Doom I & II, etc. but when I switched to consoles I totally neglected PC gaming. Then I got my Powerbook and Unreal Tournament. That changed everything. Not many latest games for the Mac though, so I was still playing the consoles. You may not like FPS, but I love them.

Then I found myself building a new PC partially with gaming in mind. Then I tried UT2k3... then, Battlefield 1942. Then I discovered NWN, UT2k4 etc. I find myself playing my consoles less and less. I can't imagine playing a FPS on a console.

One thing has to be said for the console, Gran Turismo! I will always have a console as long as the GT series keeps going. It was the sole reason I bought my PS 2 and I will buy whatever future equipment required to play future versions.

Re:Console vs. PC

[aurelian]

"No! Bad computer! Oh what the hell, just a little bit then.... Ooops, is it midnight already?"

Yeah - that's porn for you. just too damn addictive.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Maestro4k]

• "...whether or not you can actually get any gaming done on your PC. I know myself that I have a tendency to want to check my E-mail, oh and then there's a website I need to read, and I need to burn this CD, etc. until all of a sudden it's too late to do any gaming"

  Are you serious? You make it sound like gaming is work, a task that has to be performed. For 99% of the population it's the outher way araound. I find it hard to get any actual work done on my PC.

Yes I'm serious, but you're taking it wrong. I enjoy reading my E-mail, checking our websites, etc. so they tend to distract me from actually gaming. Gaming relaxes me more, and like I said I'm already in front of a computer all day at work, so getting away from it helps too.

Re:Console vs. PC

[gaijin99]

See, that was true for me until I got Alpha Centauri for Linux, and started using WineX. Now I can play several games on my Linux partition and my work is starting to suffer for it....

I still have to reboot for some games (Homeworld 2, StarTopia, Dungeon Keeper, etc) but I can play several others (StarCraft, WC3, etc) without having to reboot, its kind of a classic good news, bad news situation :)

Re:Console vs. PC

[murdocj]

I saw this debate coming a long time ago, and I saw consoles winning.

As long as there is a large installed base of PCs, there will be a strong incentive to produce PC games. Suppose that in fact all the current game producers drop their PC lines and focus solely on consoles. This would produce a huge vacuum, and we all know Nature abhores a vacuum. Some company would recognize the PCs as huge gaming market and produce new games.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you are working too hard. I don't care how much money you are making, it's not worth it. When you are 85 years old, do you really think you are going to look back and say: "I wish I had worked more."

Re:Console vs. PC

[DdJ]

That's why I've attached a keyboard and mouse to my PlayStation 2. I prefer to play on a console because the hardware does not change, so costs are kept low and you're guaranteed that all the games for the platform will play on your machine. I can hook up a keyboard, mouse, gun, wheel, dance pad, whatever -- the argument that PCs have better control is null, because the controls for a PC can be attached to a console.

Re:Console vs. PC

[iainl]

That is a fine analogy if your PC is already capable of playing these games anyway. However, the last couple of times I've gone for new hardware at 130 console has been a lot better value than a 250 graphics card that doesn't do anything non-game-related over my current little one.

Re:Console vs. PC

[WormholeFiend]

"I think the thing is that there are quite a bit of games out there designed with the console controller in mind and they do a fine job making the controls work great. Then they port it to the PC and the game's annoying as hell to play without a gamepad. In that case I'd rather just stick to the console."

very true. I played the first few chapters of Prince of Persia on my brother's console, and then I got the PC version as a present... needless to say I had to buy a USB PS2 Controller adapter to be able to finish the game.

Re:Console vs. PC

[fitten]

Other games, particularly the MMORPG types, continue to be popular because you can actually type in multiple channels and chat back and forth about any subject you want. I've yet to see a console game that does much more than allow you to either select from a set of canned messages or offer an unwieldy "typewriter" that you use the joystick to select letters and fire button to use the letter. "Typing" arbitrary messages this way is extremely slow and "unnatural" (in that it takes concentration to do it, rather than touch-typing style ease).

Console interaction (without a keyboard) will pretty much end the "social" aspect of gaming, IMO.

Re:Console vs. PC

[kclittle]

"No! Bad computer! Oh what the hell, just a little bit then.... Ooops, is it midnight already?"

So true, alas, so true! :)

Re:Console vs. PC

[vivian]

Geez, you sound like my nephew - those are the exact two games he wants to get. I keep telling him he'll be bored in about 10 minutes of ther train simulator, and rollercoaster tycoon in about an hour, but I don't think he believes me.

Regarding Video cards - This is the one area that PCs will continue to dominate games - console games simply can not match the crisp sharp resolution that a PC monitor offers. tv (not even 640x480 @25hz interlaced) vs 1600x1200 @ 60hz? No competition. There's still plenty of room for improvment in vid card speed until we can get photorealistic 60 fps at that res - but a console will never get there until they start sticking them on monitors and adding a keyboard - at which time it stops being a console and starts being a serious computer.

Re:Console vs. PC

[toasted_calamari]

I guess my problem with consoles is the low resolution. My TV has ~640x480 resolution (I don't remember what NTSC actually is) My computer, no the other hand, goes up to 1600x1200.

even if the PS3 has a 9800pro with 256 MB memory, that doesn't change the fact that it has a very low maximum resolution.

I could buy an HDTV, but have you checked the prices of HDTVs lately? far far more expensive than the cheap monitor that comes with a dell.

also, I already have a computer, I can upgrade that computer when new tech comes out, I can browse slashdot, and do whatever I want on that computer. I cannot, however, upgrade a console, I just have to buy a new one, and I am limited to gaming.

I think i'll go with the PC.

Re:Console vs. PC

[the_2nd_coming]

umm...you have a Keyboard and Mouse for the PS2 and Xbox, all you need is for games to support that interface.

Re:Console vs. PC

[AndrewCox]

I should not dignify this with a response, but.... At any rate, you have no idea of what our workflows are do you? Then why do you feel you can comment on something which you know nothing about?

I'm just a wee bit skeptical of people that like to wave their penises around by saying how much they work. 80-90 hours is about as high as I've ever seen someone claim to work. My point was that it seems as though you're including slashdot time (and most likely lunch, commute, etc.) into your all-so-impressive 80-90 hours a week.

Look at what you are missing. There is a whole world out there and it moves even when you do not.

You mean like posting on slashdot?

Efficiency of work and play combined with disciplined time management.

Ah, I see ... so since you work and play at the same time (slashdot while at work), you're really not working the whole time then, are ya? Do you also do your gaming at "work"?

80-90 hours a week ... I don't buy it. And if it were actually true, then you have some serious life management issues. As you said yourself, there's a whole world out there. Why spend 80-90 hours of it at "work"?

Re:Console vs. PC

[KazerSoza]

IMHO games look beter on PC than platforms. Just look at GTH Vice City. Graphics are way better on PC than PS2. Back that up with the ability to customize controls and that makes PC the highest of all game platforms.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

80-90 hours is about as high as I've ever seen someone claim to work.

You should spend a little time in medicine or hard core science then. In medical school, it was not uncommon for us to spend 90-100 hours a week on our rotations. I did not do a medical residency, but my friends that did (especially in surgery residencies) were pulling 18.5 hour days sometimes for 7 days a week. Do the math and you will see thats around 130 hours a week. In science, just before a grant deadline or when you are working to get something particularly important out it is not uncommon to pull 110 hour weeks.

My point was that it seems as though you're including slashdot time (and most likely lunch, commute, etc.) into your all-so-impressive 80-90 hours a week.

I'll tell you what: How would you like to follow a hard working scientist or physician around for a week? I would be happy to arrange it for you and you might find it an enlightening experience.

Ah, I see ... so since you work and play at the same time (slashdot while at work), you're really not working the whole time then, are ya? Do you also do your gaming at "work"?

Don't be an asshole. It gets you very little in life.

80-90 hours a week ... I don't buy it. And if it were actually true, then you have some serious life management issues. As you said yourself, there's a whole world out there. Why spend 80-90 hours of it at "work"?

Again, give me a call (find it on the website from my user ID) and I will be happy to introduce you to what life can be like in the sciences and medicine. Oh, and why do folks like me work this hard? Because we want to make a difference and often it is only through dedication and hard work that this can happen.

-BWJones

Re:Console vs. PC

[TXG1112]

While there are keyboards and mice available for consoles, no one ever seems to talk about the ergonomics of using them with a console.

I play a mix of RTS, RPG and FPS games, and when I play, I want to be sitting comforably at my desk, with my monitor a sharp 1280 x 1024, not on my couch hunched over my coffee table squinting at my low rez tv.

Using a mouse and keyboard in my living room would be an excercise in frustration and back pain.

Re:Console vs. PC

[AndrewCox]

Again, give me a call (find it on the website from my user ID) and I will be happy to introduce you to what life can be like in the sciences and medicine. Oh, and why do folks like me work this hard? Because we want to make a difference and often it is only through dedication and hard work that this can happen.

I stand corrected.

Re:Console vs. PC

[DenOfEarth]

That's a good point that I've heard rather often about the controls. My view is that I spend my day working by sitting at a desk. I'd much rather play my games sitting on a couch or a bean-bag when I get home, but that's just me, I'm not a professional player who makes a living on my aim. I haven't played Halo on a PC yet, but the console controls seem pretty damn good to me. Perhaps also I might like having a bit less control over the aim, it makes skill factor into things more. just my 0.02$

Re:Console vs. PC

[arsenix]

In the end, will there be a difference? As PCs get smaller and more integrated into the home, and consoles become more powerful (and use more PC components)... they may just mutate into similar entitities. You may see the day when even if there is a difference in form factor the hardware would be very similar, and games could run on both.

Hopefully this doesn't mean the consoles will be running winxp... bleh :P

Re:Console vs. PC

[Austerity Empowers]

I guess it was over 7 years ago now, but there was a time, not long ago, when console technology had fallen so far by the wayside, that gaming was almost exclusively PC driven.

Prior to that, was the birth of the console, wherein gaming was almost exclusively console driven.

PCs have always been home to "new" genre's of games, owing primarily to the flexible input methods, and the ease (and low cost) which they can write PC applications. Consoles at times, have been the best performers....

It's a stupid argument to have, it's not a totally competitive space. As long as people have PCs, PCs will have games.

Re:Console vs. PC

[snillfisk]

>> There's only so many buttons you can put on a
>> controller
> You just aint trying hard enough.

Well.. Someone are... :)

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is something to be said for simpler designs on user interfaces to games

You could apply this to anything else other than games, and as well as to PC games instead of consoles. Console menus/interfaces are "serial", not parallel - as in nesting menus upon nesting menus, while an icon can take you to whatever you're looking for instantly with 1 click. If you worry about not having enough game time while checking emails, then you're probably spending half of it navigating the menus in a console RPG.

> Not to mention that many developers use far too many keyboard commands and the interface gets so complicated the game's a bear to play.

This is why most games allow you to change the default settings to your preference, and some will allow you to create profiles for each player on your machine. If you're saying there's too much information to learn to play, then your problem is probably with the game, not the keyboard config. You can also buy game joysticks for the PC, if the keyboard isn't good enough.

> Of course it probably helps that I have never liked FPS games, and have found I prefer the cinematic-style RPGs on the consoles (like Xenosaga, with 22 hours or so of cinematics).

If you want cinematics, watch a movie. Cinematics aren't interactive like games, and was it your point to interact or sit there watch to the final level? Once you finish a game with lots of cinematics, how many times do you play it again for the cinematics? People go online and challenge real opponents instead of the AI.

Can you mod console games or create maps/levels/skins for them, etc? This is why Counter Strike and Neverwinter Nights among long lists are popular.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Blakey Rat]

XBox Live uses voice communication to good effect. Useless for an MMORPG or any other game that really requires immersion, but for a game of MechAssault or Crimson Skies it's perfect. Give it a try.

Also, I believe the PS2 will accept any USB keyboard and that some games made use of this... am I correct?

Re:Console vs. PC

[Mushukyou]

PC games are always better than console games, hands down. The graphics/video can always be higher/better... the controls are better... like playing FPS, you need a MOUSE for that.. not a stupid controller. And even if there was preference for a controller - you have one for your PC right there *easy*. I dislike people who are so narrow-minded to think that somehow console games are going to be better than PC. This is obviously false. You can upgrade your PC, but you'd have to buy a new console. There's just no good arguments, whatsoever, for a console game to be better than a PC. If someone thinks otherwise, I'd love to hear it. But I have a feeling all I'm going to hear are just stupid stories of "oh, it's harder to play on my PC because I want to surf, to do this, do that".. BS argument #1. .."It's easier to use controllers for this or that type of game".. BS argument #2. etc etc. The only reason why game-makers put out games for console first is - HELLO - they are PAYED ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO DO SO. Like GTA, they are payed big bucks to push out their games on console first.. otherwise they'd make it for PC, because PC is where the power is at. Anyone that thinks otherwise is an obvious noob that never did any serious quaking of any kind.

Re:Console vs. PC

[BigBir3d]

I have the same Celeron 2.4 and it is indeed a slow machine for that many GHz. The memory bandwidth just isn't there. Day to day desktop (it is my computer at work) is fine, but even a big spreadsheet will bog it down (I also have 512MB RAM).

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

how does less control = more skill? if anything, less control = more luck with the autoaim etc

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is always going to be the camp that would prefer to play games on their "PC" simply because they do not want a separate game box

exactly. i'd rather just get that new video card and be able to play all the best PC games, than have to buy 3 consoles to be able to play all the best console games. people argue that PCs are more expensive. I disagree. After you go through the costs of console/accessories/television, etc, the PC looks pretty cheap.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I guess my problem with consoles is the low resolution

bingo.

Command & Conquer Zero-Hour looks beautiful at 1600x1200. Plenty of room for your interface, and onscreen action. If you liked playing army men when you were a kid...having your own little digital world @1600x1200 is amazing.

no console could hold a candle to this.

everyone of my buddies who are in their late 20s/early 30s and has a regular job....and does gaming...does it on a PC.

the console pales in every imaginable way.

and with a really decent gaming PC as low as $500 (everyone already had an existing monitor no?) the console is not much cheaper.

of course there are those of us who'll drop a grand to get a p4/athlon64 rig up and running.

but what the fuck..we'll piss away more money on lattes then on a low budget gaming console...so why not just get the PC?

Re:Console vs. PC

[Maestro4k]

• I guess my problem with consoles is the low resolution. My TV has ~640x480 resolution (I don't remember what NTSC actually is) My computer, no the other hand, goes up to 1600x1200.

I know this is true and it's something that people comment on quite often, but to me the comparison isn't totally fair. When you're playing a console ON the TV, it's displaying it at the resolution you're used to seeing. I myself have found many of the cinematics in console games (FFX and FFX-2 comes to mind, especially the whole Thousand Words CGI from X-2) to look stunning on my TV. I'm sure the PC versions would look great on my PC as well, but unless I have them side-by-side I don't notice.

So the resolution thing isn't as big an issue as many think it is. Of course I'm sure there are those that do notice, but to me most of my console games look great on the TV and I'm happy with that.

Re:Console vs. PC

[SillyNickName4me]

That worked for me untill ID decided to port its Q3 engine to Linux and some peopel decided to build things like RTCW and Enemy Territory with it :P

Oh, and consoles replacing PCs for gaming? thats usually very temporarey... it lasts untill the PCs get fast enough to emulate that particular console ;P

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

The console systems have an advantage in that everything is set and the game is written for the console, which should remove any compatibility problems.

Upgrading is an advantage. Having to spend $300 for every new console when the old one becomes unsupported is a disadvantage. 3 consoles x $300 + memory cards + controllers = $1000+

Re:Console vs. PC

[SillyNickName4me]

Hmm, I think that the real problem is that PCs come standard with keyboard and mouse, and console like controllers for PCs are cheap and easy to get. Also, usually a PC is setup such that they keyboard and mouse are positioned for intensive user. Both are somewhat unusual for consoles, hence, a console conversion often must take into account that the game controller is all they can use.

That simply makes that you are rather lmitied in what you can do, and converting a game that simply needs 30 buttons + 2 seperate direction controls to a console that has at best 10 buttons and 2 directional controls on a single controller is not going to work withotu serious redesign of the game.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Maestro4k]

• the console pales in every imaginable way.

  and with a really decent gaming PC as low as $500 (everyone already had an existing monitor no?) the console is not much cheaper.

Well your first statement isn't quantifiable, there are many ways consoles are better than PCs (especially for developers who don't have to worry about supporting anything except a certain set of hardware, so hardware compatibility problems are rare), and plenty where PCs are better than consoles. Saying one is better no matter what shows a horrid bias to what you're saying, especially when backed up with no facts. Not trying to rip you, but think about these things and people will pay more attention to your posts. (Of course you're posting anonymously so you might not care about whether anyone pays much attention to your posts.)

As far as a decent gaming rig being $500, umm, yeah, and it'll not be able to play the latest games in about a year tops, unless you start turning so many features off to get a decent frame-rate that it looks awful. A decent one that can (hopefully) last you three years (standard industry turn-over rate on computers for businesses at least) will set you back at least $2000, perhaps less if you have a kick-ass monitor & speakers already. Even then unless you have the latest and greatest video card in it (~$500), you may find yourself needing at least a video card upgrade (another ~$500 for the latest and greatest) before three years are up.

The expense with PC gaming is that games continue to push the latest hardware, requiring you to buy the latest and greatest hardware regularly or you get left behind. Yes, they'll still run, but you have to turn a lot of stuff off, or your frame-rate makes it look like a slide-show. Then you're not getting all the spiffy visuals and resolution you're wanting. With the consoles the hardware is fixed. Yes, that means as the console's life wears on it's abilites seem to pale, but then again about 2-3 years into a console's life has historically been when games start appearing that really push the abilities of it. Right now the PS2 has a few coming out (Gran Turismo 4 for instance) that have graphics many thought were impossible for the console.

In any case, the console's a LOT cheaper since you don't have to worry about upgrading the hardware in it over its life cycle. Even when you buy the next-gen console, they've traditionally been no more than ~$300 when they first come out, a good $200 less than the PC price you mention (which I still doubt would be capable of keeping up with gaming demands for more than a year). You can also do like I do and wait till the price drops to get one and also have a huge library of games ready by that time.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Maestro4k]

• Other games, particularly the MMORPG types, continue to be popular because you can actually type in multiple channels and chat back and forth about any subject you want. I've yet to see a console game that does much more than allow you to either select from a set of canned messages or offer an unwieldy "typewriter" that you use the joystick to select letters and fire button to use the letter. "Typing" arbitrary messages this way is extremely slow and "unnatural" (in that it takes concentration to do it, rather than touch-typing style ease).

As Blakey Rat said in his reply to you, the PS2 will accept (at least most) USB keyboards, and there are games that support it. I'm not sure all of them that do off-hand though. I expect the PS3 will definitely continue to support this, and the Xbox 2 probably will (if the current Xbox doesn't already). The gap between PCs and Consoles as far as typing stuff in is shrinking pretty fast because of this. Heck you can get a Logitech keyboard that has a controller built in so you can use it to play + type all in one. It's not terribly useful as a general controller though, but your console comes with at least one regular controller.

Re:Console vs. PC

[murdocj]

Control is king in the games world

I agree, but I don't think that's an argument for consoles. One of my favorite all-time games on the PC was Deus Ex. And one of the primary reasons was the control. I didn't have to think about moving, looking, shooting etc. I just did it, as naturally as I walk down the street. I was JC Denton.

A friend of mine who has a console tried it and wasn't impressed. When I mentioned how natural the controls were he said that the control on the console just didn't work as well for that game.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Bendebecker]

The answer of course is to get yourself a 56k modem like I have. After waiting five minutes for a single slashdot screen to load, you quickly become so fustrated with everything not on your computer that you just drop it and go to playing games. The only downside of this method is that you tend to become extremely violent in gameplay - murdering the peasents in theif for example.

Re:Console vs. PC

[FatherOfONe]

Well one of your arguments starts to go away with HDTV. Specifically 1080i.

Now as far as controllers go, I agree, but that will probably be handled in a while.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Coffeesloth]

"PC titles will become ports." Umm...let's think about that. Since the X-Box basically is a PC and the Playstation is basically a PC running Windows CE...well the PS-1 is at least...what's the difference?

We're pretty much getting down to a marketing ploy to sell games... new consoles = PC's without the flexibility of a PC, now why in the world would anyone want to buy that? I'd rather keep the PC and have the best of both worlds...if the game companies don't want to market a PC version then I really don't need the game...

Re:Console vs. PC

[McGarnacle]

Try to port something like Neverwinter Nights to a console and you'll see just how "minimal" the differences can get.

I was just thinking that very thing. I play NWN on my PC, and make good use of the *36* quickslots ([ctrl|shift|nothing]F1-F12) for spells and other stuff. It's completely necessary to use them, as the right-click radial menu is too cumbersome to use when you've got a gang of baddies breathing down your neck and need to get that spell off quickly.

After playing NWN for some time I tried Baldur's Gate (Dark Alliance? I can't remember which one) where your quickslots were accessed by holding down L1 and then hitting one of square/triangle/circle/x, or by pressing up and down on the digital pad and hitting circle. So that's a total of 5 quickslots. Definitely not enough for a game like NWN, even if you're not a spellcaster. Can't see how it would be possible to port NWN to the console without having a keyboard.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Libertarian_Geek]

I would imagine that console game controls would drastically change if for instance PC FPS gamers could play against console FPS gamers. Getting stomped by most key-mousers would bring the lack of a good FPS controller into the light.

Re:Console vs. PC

[TXG1112]

A 1080i TV 10 feet away will not provide as much detail as a monitor 18 inches away.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Geekbot]

LOL. I play on a duron 900 also. I have a Geforce 4 MX though. Dual Monitor output for watching porn while gaming (Maybe that's why I get killed a lot). But seriously, I play Urban Terror, the Quake 3 mod. Yep, an old machine, 4 times slower than modern computers with a barely adequate graphics card and low frames per second. And I still have a blast. Unfortunately that's why I'm confident that better titles will be released for the consoles first.

I've been playing a free mod for about 3 years. A free mod to a 4 or 5 year old game? That I don't even have a legal copy of? (errr...I mean that some people don't have a legal copy of)....Modding is one of the biggest arguments for PC gaming, the ability to get a huge value from a game, even after years of play. And I just don't see that being big bucks for the software publishers with their current business model.

I suppose it could be very good for them if they took advantage of the number of people producing free mods as a means to sell their product for years afte release though. Hey, maybe I was wrong about that PC thing. Long term revenue from a single FPS game due to the free work of a large fan base?

Of course, the software companies could just keep producing buggy games and then sell patches to people for years.

Re:Console vs. PC

[code_echelon]

I am one of the ones who will always want to play on my PC. I enjoy the Mouse and keyboard for one, and definitely enjoy the fact that I work on my computer a lot and can just turn on a game for a little to kill a few minutes. Also some of the new game pads for PC are awesome :

Gamepad

I have several friends that play PC games very regularly and have all bought a gamepad, most are very similar to the playstation 2 controller(including rumble, and some with fans), for games that you want to use a controller there are plenty available for PC (I admit most of them suck however there are some new ones that are great).

Furthermore, as HDTV makes more advancements into creating a clearer picture, computer hardware will continue to create better products and these products will always be available to the PC users first before they are put into a console. Even though these new consoles will be very powerful, by the time they come out a top of the line PC would be vastly superior in terms of graphics and extendibility.

PC gaming will always be around as there are enough of a user base that will continue to buy games to support it, console gaming will also continue as there is a very large user base that just wants to play games and do not want to deal with all the issues relating to PC gaming (upgrading, installation, troubleshooting issues that may occur etc.). Consoles are just small PCs that use the identical hardware and are supposed to run the same software, definitely makes development a little easier when the hardware is restricted as such.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Sinistar2k]

Your $500 investment is typically outdated in 2 to 3 years, requiring another $500 investment if your motherboard won't support the latest and greatest hardware to play the latest and greatest games.

By comparison, there are still games being published for my ancient gray PSX. My initial investment there has gone a long, long way.

And in all that time, my PSX has never required maintenance, security patches, driver installs, OS upgrades (that had to be installed by me, anyway), or hardware upgrades. I've never had to troubleshoot a flaky power supply, and I've certainly never had to adjust graphics settings on the games to make them playable.

Now, granted, I have a bunch of other consoles, through which I am 'upgrading' my capabilities, but each one cost about the same price as a mid-level graphics card and have been just as reliable as that old PSX.

So yes, you can game on a cheap computer or you can game on a cheap console. But be prepared to put at least $300 of your time into keeping that PC operable. How long do you spend tweaking graphics settings when you pop in that new game? Whatever the amount, it's a lot more than when you pop a game into a console.

I game on both platforms, but when I want a quick game, I go straight for the console. Fast boot time, no login, I press 'On' and the game is there.

When I want a game with the latest graphics or vastly more multiplayer options, I go with the PC.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Xaymot]

You're a moron. Try playing Ratchet and Clank.

Re:Console vs. PC

[nbanman]

I second a previous statement that somehow, resolution doesn't seem to matter so much on a console, at least for a specific type of game. RTS games definitely suffer, but most everything else is just fine.

I've played games on a PC where I prefer the graphics on the console version, even at the lower resolutions. This probably has to do with the fact that my graphics card would choke with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering turned on. But I don't need that stuff with my console--the fuzziness of my TV screen acts as my own low-budget AA and AF!

Re:Console vs. PC

[WorkEmail]

I don't think that console gaming will ever replace PC gaming for a few reasons.

One of them being, you can upgrade your PC's hardware anytime you choose, making it easy to play more advanced games as they are released. A console traps you with the same hardware for a few years, while newer and better games come out for computer, you are stuck playing the dumbed down ports, like happened with the Tom Clancy games, and with SOF2 (the Xbox version was horrible). Even though Halo came out first on the Xbox, it had no Online play, and the graphics were not as good as the PC version. They also added new maps and two new weapons to the PC version.

Buying a console is kind of like buying a laptop, you can do minor things to tweak and upgrade, but you're stuck with the same thing for a while. I like to upgrade video cards, etc. Also patches on games come out faster, and more frequently on PC, and give you the ability to "MOD" games, and create skins, etc.

Also sitting at a desk with a high res monitor is more comfy, and easier on the eyes. Not to mention that the mouse and keyboard it FAR FAR superior to the controller for accuracy and control in FPS games. And with more and more Online games coming out, the ability to be able to type freely is always a good thing. Hopefully most communication in games will soon go to strictly voice, but still.

PC games aren't going anywhere, they are the best in many ways, option wise, graphics are better, updated more, easier to control, can be patched more often, modded, can create custom maps, among many many other things.

Re:Console vs. PC

[vizek]

I have a GF2MX as well. Paired with a Athlon XP1800+, is good enough for ALL the games I tried in the last year. I admit I don't play that much, but still check out a few games a year. I had problems with Call of Duty (DX9 game)- it was slow, slow on anything else than 640x480. Then I updated my nvidia drivers and the difference was amazing - smooth sailing! The point is - I need a computer anyway in my household so the expense is minimal to make it game-worthy. There's no $900 every 2 years, at least not for games. I upgrade my machine because I want ALL my programs to run faster, I want to burn CDs/DVDs faster etc. Game performance is a nice side effect.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet Jesus, 90 hours a week? How much are they paying you to own your life? There are sweatshop children in Vietnam working less hours than you. Maybe you should consider a new line of work, so that you can enjoy the finer things in life, like PLAYING GAMES.

Re:Console vs. PC

[FatherOfONe]

A 60+ inch HDTV will get very close. Understand that I agree with you, and love a monitor also (currently playing NWN Hoards). But right now the difference is huge ~700X500 resolution compared to your 1280X1024. But some HDTV's do 1280X720 (16:9), and that is a heck of a lot closer to what your monitor currently puts out.

I will say this. I won't miss having to constantly download patches to crappy PC games or constantly update my video drivers and pray it doesn't break anything. I am specifically talking to any ATI and BLIZZARD people out there.

My rant...
BLIZZARD quit making games and then releasing a patch that pimps players.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Some_Llama]

Could you post a link to any sites offering this? I know PS2 has usb connectors but I have never seen any keyboard or mouse compatible devices as such.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

PS2 keyboard and mouse.

Finding games that take advantage of these devices may be the tricky feat. My point was merely that such devices did exist to mimic the PC experience with a console.

Re:Console vs. PC

[TXG1112]

I didn't mean to sound like an asshole, but I was very busy earlier today and didn't have time to form a more detailed reply.

At some point in the future, the distinction between monitors and TV's will become very blurry. (Some will say this is rapidly approaching) Both will offer very high resolutions, and come in a variety of sizes. My problem is not so much with possible resolutions with TV sets, but with the typical distance one sits away from them.

Even if I had a 60" screen that was capable of 1600 x 1200 (or higher), sitting ten (or more) feet away from it as in a typical living room is not comfortable setting for me to play the types of games I play. (Mostly RTS and RPG, with some FPS) My eyes would have trouble resolving that level of detail at those distances.

While that setup would be excellent for group action gaming, (the strongest genre for consoles as it is) it is wholly unsuitable for other types.

Re:Console vs. PC

[scot4875]

TV is still stuck at NTSC unless you're willing to shell out $$$ for HDTV, and that TOTALLY shifts things back in favor of the PC

Only if you're willing to ignore all of the other things a good TV will do far better than any computer monitor. Also, comparing apples-to-apples might make your argument carry more water.

A decent HD-ready direct-view TV (Sony Wega, Panasonic Tau) can be had for around $1000. A big-screen (~46") rear-projection HD TV will run you around $1500.

A good 21" CRT monitor will run you what, $500? A 21" LCD will be at least a grand.

Personally, I'd rather spend the extra money (as I did) on a good TV so that I can have friends over to watch movies, play games, and watch ESPN HD. The thought of doing that huddled around a 21" monitor at my computer desk just isn't very appealing.

Your $500 PC will do a shitty job at playing most newer games, and will be restricted to playing them at the low resolutions you hate, wheras my $200 console can play every game released on it without turning the graphics details all the way down.

This whole argument is stupid anyway. I don't understand why people feel such a need to have the Ub3R l33t gaming system. Personally, I play good PC games on my PC, and good console games on my consoles. High polygon counts alone don't make a game fun.

--Jeremy

Re:Console vs. PC

[FatherOfONe]

I am a little confused a 60+" monitor at 10 feet would look similar to a 19" monitor 2 feet away.

I do agree that I like to play games like Never Winter Nights on a computer, but then I would say that it might be cool on a great TV also. I could see something like a wireless trackball and keyboard that would work well.

The issue that I see is that most people have a computer and don't mind letting their kids bang on it for a few hours a night WHILE they watch TV. They don't have the money to spend on two 60"+ TV's. OR They have multiple TV's but one good one, and they don't mind letting the kids play with their gamecube/ps2 whatever while they either watch them or watch another tv.

So like I said, I do agree with your point, but perhaps not for the same reasons.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Lord Kestrel]

Zork, and other *true* text based games have pretty much gone the way of the dodo, but ascii based games such as nethack are still around and kicking. In fact, rec.games.roguelike.nethack is a very active newsgroup, and a lot of new people are showing up and playing for the first time. If you like ascii based games, try nethack.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Doctor O]

Naw. Consider the impact of the idea on a) the programming and b) game design.

First of all, implementing every high-tech control device, offering enough standard sets that the player doesn't have to assign the controls all by himself, which is a royal PITA, while still offering usable and learnable controls for those 99.9% using the standard controller, is downright illusional. Consider new controllers coming out, consider the pure number of 'controllers' with USB out there.

Second, controls are an essential part of game design. Level design, the number of moves or other manipulations of the gameplay by the player, every interaction is done through the controls. The controls are the interface between the game world and the player. This interface must be usable and non-frustrating. Game difficulty and player frustration is something to consider. People won't buy games that frustrate them. You can't design a level for a FPS with people using mice in mind, because then PS2-Controller-using people will get nowhere any time soon, and you can't cater it to the PS2 controller without making the game way too easy for anyone with a mouse.

It simply is too much work, and the extra work is of interest to a tiny fraction of players onle.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Bega]

The problem I have though with PC games is, that even though it might offer larger resolutions, more "crisp" graphics, and what else, in my eyes it makes the game just ugly. The TV having such a bad picture, but still it's wonderful - just plug that console with an RGB-cable and you've got crisp enough graphics. I wonder, really much, what does people need higher resolutions in FPS-games (besides extending your vpenis.sh) - being it a fast paced games, you don't have time to notice, if you do "Ooh I just love the way I see him so clea-- Oh fuck I got shot again".

What am I trying to get to? You don't need high resolutions. Of course, that would be nice, but sorry, I don't buy it - not until games incorporate full-scene anti-aliasing and some really nice texturing and well as other environmental eye-candy, I will still be thinking that the games will look horrible. (yes, I play PC-games, and yes, I play them at a maximum resolution of 800x600 - whereas the PAL res is 720x576 and NTSC 720x480)

Re:Console vs. PC

[CronoCloud]

You are correct, sir. There are quite a few PS2 games that support USB keyboards (and mice)

Most FPS's do, I know both Half Life and Deus Ex do.

RPG Maker 2 does, thank goodness.

Almost all online games support the keyboard for lobby and in game chat. You can actually play EQOAF (Everquest Online Adventures Frontiers MMORPG) with just a keyboard. Same goes for FFXI

And if you have the PS2 Linux kit, a keyboard and mouse are included. :-) Firefox and Slashdot, on a PS2!

Re:Console vs. PC

[acidrain69]

I did and I beat it. What is your point, tool?

Re:Console vs. PC

[Xaymot]

TOOL? If you have a PS2 then why are you bitching? Oh.. i get it. This is the part where you fellate yourself with your graphic descriptions of RAM and MHZ and clock speeds. I'm sorry, go ahead and put your head back between your legs, i didnt mean to bother you.

Re:Console vs. PC

[Xaymot]

OK, this tool comment really bothered me. So, some dude over payed for a graphics card and you talk down to him as if he's the ass. Great, now your the techie dork with a ponytail. Enjoy that lifestyle. So i assumed that you didnt have a PS2 (my bad). So, if you enjoy both console and PC then why are you rubbing your PC knowledge in this guy's face? That's the part i couldn't figure out. But now i know, your just a geek who is still fellating yourself from their orginal comment.... oh wait, you have a little white smudge on your lips. Yeah, taste it.

Re:Console vs. PC

[acidrain69]

RTFA, dumbass. Like I said, it wasn't about ultra spiffy graphics. I listed user mods as well, which consoles don't have. I have and enjoy games on consoles and PC, I'm just tired of people sounding the death knell of the PC gaming world, it just isn't happening.

I'm sorry you're such an asshole that you need to bring insults into this.

Re:Console vs. PC

[rtb61]

Games consoles are nearly at the end of the effective life. A games console is just a closed standard computer for playing games with the cost of the hardware subsidised by the games people buy for that platform. With computing power getting cheaper and more open standards being used in software and hardware, the space in the market for susidised games hardware platform shrinks. Why buy a device with built in limited capability and a compulsary vendor lock in. As for multiplayer gaming one screen is a crock, on consoles the only effective multiplayer gaming is online but with the upcoming advent of white box notebooks and the resultant drop in price it will generate, multiplayer notebook on lan gaming for a family is drawing nearer. The future "gaming console" might have more life as a gaming and media server, providing linked access for all the members of a household as well as their guests i.e. a family that plays togethor stays together.

Re:Console vs. PC

[obeythefist]

You're omitting the camp of people who prefer to play games on a PC/Mac instead of a console because the overall quality and experience of playing a decent game on a correctly configured system is far superior to anything possible on todays consoles.

PC (including Mac, the Macintosh is a personal computer with an IBM/Motorola joint venture CPU) gaming is already a side-market. About 90% of new games on the market today are halfarsed console ports.

Nintendo Entertainment System vs IBM-PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sounds like the same flame war my friends and I had in the late 80s only this time I'm on the PC side.

Nethack or Dungeon Crawl ain't on the console

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry... but I just don't see a PS3 version of Nethack coming out. PC games will never die. :)

Re:Nethack or Dungeon Crawl ain't on the console

[SmackCrackandPot]

I thought noeGNUd looked pretty cool. Having a multi-player version with a high-score page could make things interesting.

Re:Nethack or Dungeon Crawl ain't on the console

[slavetrade55]

But just imagine if it did! Think of how vividly realistic the @ symbol would look with today's technology!

Re:Nethack or Dungeon Crawl ain't on the console

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chocobo's Dungeon games are pretty much exactly like nethack with tiles.

Re:Nethack or Dungeon Crawl ain't on the console

[Geekbot]

Lucky for you they haven't. Then instead of being an old school hack gamer, you'd just be a conformist loser, unlike us other 31337 console gamers who are playing Jedi Arena on our old 2600's. Personally, I like to play old text based muds using braille. That way no one will ever be as cool as me.

Re:Nethack or Dungeon Crawl ain't on the console

[CronoCloud]

Take one PS2 Linux kit and add Nethack 3.4.3 sources, edit the necessary configuration files and compile and install. Voila, Nethack on a Playstation 2.

Ask Rev. Lovejoy

[Anonymous Coward]

Flanders: Is the console destined for superiority, or will the ubiquitous need and superior user input of the PC keep it as a viable game platform?"

Lovejoy: ooh, Ned. Short answer no with a but, long answer yes with an if.

Games: Topics Beat To Death

[0x0d0a]

This topic has been absolutely done to death.

It's pretty clear that neither form of gaming is going to "die".

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Looks like the editors needed some more hits to fill their quota before the end of the month so they decided to start a console vs PC thread.

What a shitstorm this will become.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty clear that neither form of gaming is going to "die".

Maybe not die, but the Big and Almighty PC is going to have a big fall... A PC can be used as a VCR but only nerds do that. Average people like simple (although many don't know how to use the VCR :-\) machines that do their job simple and efficiently.
We will see this trend happen in all fields. Of course , there will be many people that prefer the a multi-purpose tool, but I think that the trend will be make games for consoles and port it for the PC instead of the other way around...

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, actually it isn't clear.

One market segement is trending up, one is trending down.

Guess which.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[dnoyeb]

On the contraty. PCs seem to be dead set on doing things which consoles will always do better. Such as pretty graphics.

PC was always a casual gaming platform. One games simply because he already has the hardware there in the PC. But buying a $400 graphics card can not be considered casual. This gaming 'requirement' is going to put a significant damper on 3d gaming on PCs if consoles can grab multiplayer gaming correctly.

Much easier to carry an X-box to a LAN party than a PC.

Non-3d intensive games will still flourish on the PC.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[Zocalo]

Maybe not "die", but the stereotypical console game has small claustrophobic levels, quite unlike the spawling open areas of PC equivalents. Similarly PC based games are often seen as being more intellectually challenging as well, rather than just something to pass the time while the latest "reality" shows are on the box. I think the real point of the article is what is going to happen to MMORGs once the console crowd gets involved in a scene they have not yet really impacted on.

For an example, take a look at Deus Ex and its sequel, Invisible War, which epitomises the sterotypes above. DX was originally written for the PC and had what often seemed huge levels, even if this was entirely down to effective design; the Hong Kong levels in particular were very impressive at this. There was quite sophisticated AI for the time and many situations could be handled a whole lot easier if you thought about what you were doing and didn't go in guns blazing.

Segue to DX:IW, designed from the ground up to accomodate the console market and much of the magic is gone. The levels are smaller; so much smaller that you seem to spend as much time loading levels as you do actually playing them because you have to move back and forth so much. As for the "universal" ammunition for projectile and energy weapons which smacks of "four control button consolitis"; puhleeze! No more rueing using your last sniper round on the minion to save time and now having to face his boss up close and personal with a melee weapon in DX:IW!

So, "Die"? No, almost certainly not, but getting hamstrung to the lowest common denominator of each aspect of the targetted platforms seems equally inevitable. All those PC game genres that take advantage of PC hardware, even trivial stuff such as having a proper keyboard, are really going to suffer if the trend continues...

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[TopShelf]

Holy Hyperbole, Batman! What would writers do without stories like "PC vs. Console, which is going to die out?". Why of course, the writers themselves would whither away.

Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea...

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[dthree]

Yeah, my 61" tv is much easier to carry than my 21' monitor.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

However, given the mauling Ion Storm have received over IW (and the one I'm thoroughly expecting them to get over Thief 3) because of its rampant and painful consolisation, I'm hoping companies may think a little harder about the whole process.

(and before the console fanboys start - yes, I know about games that have been developed for both PC and console that have been a sucess. That's because they were done well with attention being paid to both and the advantages of each platform used correctly. Unfortunately it's a lot easier for software houses to do it badly).

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[xangsta]

it's not going to fall die or anything else

uhh farcry? uhh doom 3?? uhhh halflife 2??? uhhh world of warcraft???????

there's always going to be a good supply of nerds and average people....neither is going down

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[Tenareth]

Consoles do graphics better? I'm still waiting for the newest consoles to catch up to games I played on the PC 3 years ago.

Please... consoles are great for mindless gaming, but graphics is not their forte.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[Have Blue]

Look beyond first-person shooters. Prince of Persia didn't have a single load point in the entire game, you can't get much more "sprawling" than that. DX's mistake was to try to be designed for consoles and PCs simultaneously.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[cableshaft]

You think it sucks that the lowest common denominator for game design is consoles now, just wait until mobile phones become the lowest common denominator. Microsoft is already helping facilitate it with their XNA platform.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[mangu]

buying a $400 graphics card can not be considered casual.

If you are satisfied with the samne graphic quality you get in a console, then you don't need a $400 graphics card. The average $40 motherboard today has built-in graphics capability that's much better than anything you can get in a TV of any size.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[stephenisu]

Please... consoles are great for mindless gaming, but graphics is not their forte.

mindless gaming and graphical quality are unrelated. Take Quake III for example (old I know), when it came out, it had great graphics. But it was all standard point and shoot.

Then you have nethack...

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[EvilIdler]

I remember the original Tomb Raider on PSX.
That was huge. I used to wonder how they crammed
these gigantic levels into a Playstation's memory.

Then they released a sequel with even larger boobs
AND levels :)

So not all console games need to be dinky.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[Nosf3ratu]

I'd have to agree with the parent post, however, if console makers wanted to capture a large part of the PC-user market, all they would have to do is offer keyboard-like controllers (meaning: tons of configurable buttons, full QWERTY) with a high-sensitivity, seperate joystick that would yield the same aiming prowess that a mouse gives PC gamers. Give me something like that, ethernet, and a box capable of running D3 at high res and I'd gladly use that badboy on my bigscreen, and, I'd wager, so would every other PC gamer.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[DunbarTheInept]

Graphical prettiness is not the point. That's not why PC games are better. It's because the complexity is better. more choices - more flexibility, the ability to more easily press the "buttons" on the "controller" (by which I mean keyboard. The console controllers suffer from the fact that you need more fingers than a human being actually has in order to simultaneously use the buttons and also have a good grip on the controller itself. If the "controller" is a keyboard you lay down on the table in front of you, then that frees up all five fingers on each hand for button-mashing. It was typical in Deus Ex or Thief for me to be hitting shift/alt/some_other_key, while also moving the mouse to turn myself around. That kind of thing I can't do on a console controller.)

Also, a keyboard has a secondary function - you can use it to quickly enter letters, or so I've heard.

Another place where the PC games win is in strategy and tactics. Playing something like Civilization without a mouse would really be terrible.

This doesn't mean consoles *can't* do these things. Keyboards for consoles can be made, and are being made, actually. Newer consoles like the Xbox are actually PC's on the inside, with hard drives and everything, so you can save games in a sane way with lots of context, instead of on a tight memory card that can only store crude data, and therefore limits what you can affect in the game. (If the savegame can only hold a tiny number of variables, then that limited number of variables is essentially all you can change about the gameworld - which is why strategy games on consoles have traditionally sucked - there's too mnuch context to try to fit it on the memory card unless you dumb down the game.)

Anyway, consoles *could* fix these failings, but they don't seem to actually be doing it in practice. In practice, "this game was designed for consoles" ends up involving not only designing the game for the console's hardware, but also designing it for the console's target audience - which is people who prefer a style of play that I don't like as much. (But it's still fun in a different way - it's just not as MUCH fun. Splinter Cell was great, but it doesn't hold a candle to Deus Ex or Thief for what it was trying to do. The Dark Clouds and the Final Fantasies are great, but they don't come close to the richness of RPG's on computer (and no, I don't mean MMORPG - I mean things like Arcanum and Fallout.)

About the only style of game that is better on consoles is the "small groupd of friends play the same game in front of the same TV" kind of games, since you can plug in multiple controllers.

Things like platform jumpers are about a wash - Tomb Raider was about the same of PC as on consoles.

Another thing to remember is that consoles take Extreme advantage from the fact that they are going to be output to a TV screen, and TV screens are very low-res. They aren't actually any faster than PC's in their graphics. It's just that PC gamers don't typically try to play with a vertical resolution of only 400 lines.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[Xaymot]

Yeah because Grand Theft Auto was so damn claustrophobic. As far as intellectually challenging goes, what the hell are you talking about? Console gamers have enjoyed ports of RTS games and RPG games for years. What game on PC is too "intellectual" to be ported over to console? If there is any angle of difference its that console gamers are way more flexible than PC gamers. Final Fantasy XI will show that the console gamer can expand to the MMORPG genre and they have already rapidly grown to the FPS genre. I'd like to see you bust an infinite combo in street fighter. But you can't cause your not a gamer, your just an asshat that owns a PC and like's to chat while playing slow clicky clicky games that take no skill but tons of time. This whole elitist PC vs. Console gamer thing is retarded because like many people I own both so it's a non-issue for me. I can own you at C.O.D. / Street Fighter / and Puzzle Bobble / and Galaxies if I still had an account.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[SideshowBob]

This gaming 'requirement' is going to put a significant damper on 3d gaming on PCs if consoles can grab multiplayer gaming correctly.

And modding.. and input devices.. and high resolution (greater than 1024x768, which is my minimum).. and a willingness to design games for adults rather than 12 year olds (in other words, turn based strategy etc. and yes I do want nice graphics with my turn based strategy, the two are not mutually exclusive)

Face it, the two are fundamentally different experiences, always have been, and probably always will be. I remember participating in my first consoles vs. pc gaming argument 25 years ago, and the arguments on both sides haven't really changed.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[scot4875]

Yeah, that world in Zelda: Wind Waker was sure cramped. I mean, it *only* took about 10 minutes to sail across the entire (seamless) map. Or as someone else mentioned, the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, with 1 huge seamless castle, or the GTA cities. Damn, those consoles are limited.

Your entire post is based on 1 game. Here's another game that was released on hardware that's vastly inferior to any console released since the PS1, had a huge world with no load times, and came on a half-dozen or so floppies: Ultima VII.

By your clueless logic, if a game's world/presentation were limited only by the hardware it ran on, we'd have worlds that are thousands of times bigger/better than those of U7, since we have hardware that's (literally) thousands of times better.

Obviously *that* isn't the case, so there must be some other factors... Like, maybe, (poor) decisions made by the developers? *cough* Splinter Cell *cough*

--Jeremy

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[CronoCloud]

Hmmph very elitist. You haven't played many console games have you?

There is a Playstatoin 2 game called Everquest Online Adventures. It's an MMORPG. It is one big seamless world. You can walk from Fayspires to Freeport to Highpass to Qeynos swim to Odus and swim around to the Kappa fortress where Sylthis or whatever her name is, and not experience a single load screen whatsoever.Of course it will take a while, at least an hour, if not two. Hope you have SoW.

I have the PS2 Deus Ex and it's a proper port. You can even play with keyboard and mouse if you want. They did break up the levels due to memory constraints but it's the same game.

DX IW did not get ported to the PS2, so you can only blame Iron Storm for being stupid and not designing the game properly.to work well no matter what controls you used. Blame the programmers not the console.

I am PS2 gamer and I have a keyboard and mouse. So quit yer bitchin.

Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death

[obeythefist]

Prince of Persia is a great console game. Really pushes the consoles to the limits.

I found it to be a godawful PC game. The control scheme was so awkward it would been easier to balance the clumsiness with a clumsy gamepad (though I am not about to rush out and buy one).

Furthermore you can't even control the camera angles! How linear can you get? The reason of course is twofold: Firstly, the developers don't need to do as much content generation because they can "hide" most of the detail that would otherwise be needed by limiting camera angles. Secondly, the camera angles ensure that the developers can optimise FPS for the weak and underpowered consoles by preventing the user from "seeing" any complicated scenes.

With a PC the developers can just, well, "do it" and let the user go where they want and see what they want.

This is in line with many posters in this thread who see what is coming. The lowest common denominator is winning. Games are getting worse because consoles are becoming king. This is what publishers want. They do less work for the same return by producing inferior product and selling it to people who don't know better because they're not PC gamers.

Old School

[Analogy Man]

I may be an old fart about this, but I think many of the slower more thoughtful strategy games are more fun than the twitchers. These games will always be on the PC side. I can see the migration where FPS's will tend toward the console.

Re:Old School

[spellraiser]

I may be an old fart about this, but I think many of the slower more thoughtful strategy games are more fun than the twitchers. These games will always be on the PC side. I can see the migration where FPS's will tend toward the console.

I think you are right about the strategy games; the 'serious' gamers who play a lot of slower games don't usually buy consoles; and I'm not sure that there's a big incentive for the console developers to push into that market; except perhaps in Japan, where there seems to be a market for everything.

FPS's might and might not gravitate towards consoles; that will, however, only happen with better controls for the consoles - playing FPS's on anything other than a keyboard/mouse is an exercise in frustration and futility. Consoles will either need provide these, or come up with something better - if that's even possible ...

Re:Old School

[aborchers]

OK, I'm really not trying to flamebait here, but when was the last time you played a console game? The assumption that consoles only support twitchers and FPSs is seriously flawed. There are plenty of complex strategy titles available for consoles.

Or are you talking about things like Adventure and Zork? I don't think those have been ported to the PS2. ;-)

Re:Old School

[aborchers]

Are there any modern consoles for which a keyboard and mouse upgrade are not available?

As for "might or might not", just go shopping. FPS titles are being ported (or initially released) to consoles in droves. If there are more for PCs, I'd say that reflects the lower economic barrier to platform entry than any technical superiority.

Re:Old School

[Analogy Man]

Actually I play VGA Planets V4. It is a play by mail with 1992 era graphics.

The playability of a game has much more to do with an interesting concept and a well balanced game than splashy graphics...but that is my opinion. I have enjoyed the networked FSP's but in general my gaming time is (was...I have twin infants) punctuated with interuptions from wife, children, life... I can't sit troll like in the glow of a LCD...as much as I might like to sometimes.

A few more reason I don't have a console at home are:

1) they are usually an ugly tangle of cords in the living room (at least in my friends homes)

2) I would like my kids to be comfortable on the computer doing more than just games

3) I want my kids to go outside more, and the home workstation area less central...requiring a more active decision to choose versus turning on the tube.

Re:Old School

[Tenareth]

FPS on a console sucks. Nothing beats a Keyboard/Mouse combo. And even the games that let you buy one are not geared towards it.

Being able to do a 180 degree turn in a split second is the key to games like CounterStrike, DoD, etc.

I have a few FPS on consoles, and gave up, realizing it was just silly.

Re:Old School

[Altanar]

Better question is, when was the last time you played Civilization, Caesar, Gettysburg, or Warcraft on a console?

Games like Final Fantasy Tactics, as much fun as they might be, aren't vanilla strategy games, in the genre sense.

Re:Old School

[aborchers]

I have a toddler too, so I hear you about limited game time!

For me, I went back to the console a few years ago when I started working at a computer all day because I wanted to kick back in the living room with a snack and a frosty beverage and enjoy casual gaming at the flip of the switch rather than spending yet more time in front of a computer installing and configuring software. My console is integrated into my entertainment center and also serves as my DVD player, so its intrusion is minimal.

At present, I don't have any games on my PC, but if the game was compelling enough, I have no opposition to playing on a PC. I'll have to look into VGA Planets. That sounds like the kind of thing I'd enjoy. Have you checked out NationStates?

Re:Old School

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to do a 180 degree turn in a split second is the key to games like CounterStrike, DoD, etc.

Yep, there's nothing like realism in an FPS :-P

Re:Old School

[aborchers]

Better question is, when was the last time you played Civilization, Caesar, Gettysburg, or Warcraft on a console?

I haven't played them on any platform, but I get your point. As far as I can tell, the only thing standing between these titles and the consoles is fast persistent storage and networking, both of which are recently/currently being implemented on consoles. As the consoles take on more of the capabilities that were previously exclusive to PCs, what reason is there to believe these games won't become available?

Re:Old School

[TrentL]

That is why I found Halo on the X-Box to be so useless. Everyone kept saying, "This is so great!" and I'm thinking, "Have you guys played Counterstrike or Quake? Do you know what you're missing?" It's agonizing to use a controller to play an FPS when you are used to a mouse and keyboard. Joysticks (or joy-nubs) are not meant for aiming! I love consoles, but they aren't designed for FPS's.

Re:Old School

[Threni]

> These games will always be on the PC side.

There's no technical reason for this - nor is there any reason that PC games should have better user input. I wonder if there's any milage in all console manufacturers coming up with unified input. A USB lightgun, or steering wheel, for example.

I prefer consoles because of the obvious lack of installation/driver nonsense, as well as the fact that quality control is way higher (I've never crashed a GBA or N64 game, and I've only had problems with the occasional Playstation I game - basically GTA and Vigilante 8 part 2).

Re:Old School

[Octorian]

Actually, these days those games need one more huge thing... A high-resolution display, where you can see the little details as well as the big things. TVs just aren't designed for this.

Re:Old School

[Mnemia]

The problem is that unless the superior input schemes (keyboard, mouse) actually come with every console sold, the game companies will design their games around the control instead. They don't want to artificially limit their market by only being able to sell to the few console gamers who purchase additional input devices to supplement the controllers that came with their system. So they will just design a game with a simplistic user interface instead.

Even if a major console manufacturer did include these things with their systems, I still don't believe it would be popular with the console gaming audience. These people don't want to deal with anything complicated and the keyboard and mouse makes them think of a computer. And, 3rd party console game developers would not develop for the keyboard and mouse either unless virtually all the popular consoles had it by default, since otherwise they would be limiting their ability to port the game to other consoles and increase sales.

All that said, I still think the keyboard and mouse are far superior for certain types of games than any console controller I've ever used. There are indeed fun console games that use a controller; I'm not denying that at all. I'm just saying that consoles encourage game developers to develop user interfaces with a very limited number of different controls and simplistic input methods. This can be a good thing in certain types of games, for sure. But other games suffer dramatically from it, especially in replay value. When I was really into Counter-Strike I typically had almost my whole keyboard bound to various actions so that I could memorize the locations and do things ultra-fast. Similarly, a lot of RTS games have a ton of keyboard shortcuts that can make the game a lot more enjoyable when you learn them. The keyboard shortcuts not only are more convenient but also introduce a steeper learning curve into the game that makes online matches much more competitive. It takes longer to learn the game so there is more variation in skill level online.

Re:Old School

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you...

the best game ever made (IMHO) was transport tycoon deluxe. no other game has even attempted at the complexity of gameplay in ttd... & with the mod community thats grown around the game, it keeps on getting better even 10 years after its release.

thats one thing the consoles will probably NEVER have... mods

Re:Old School

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the complexity of console strategy games titles can really compare to the complexity you get from a good PC strategy or war game. Take a look at HPS, Battlefront, and Matrix games some time and see how complicated they get. Even back when Koei produced some of their better games they were really just kiddie games compared to those producers.

Re:Old School

[Threni]

> The problem is that unless the superior input schemes (keyboard, mouse) actually
> come with every console sold, the game companies will design their games around
> the control instead.

Sure - hence my `one adaptor for all consoles` idea. If they went for standard pc mice/joysticks, for example, we wouldn't even be having this conversation!

> I still don't believe it would be popular with the console gaming audience.
> These people don't want to deal with anything complicated

Eh? You're talking about me (i'm a programmer) and my friends (they are not even remotely geeklike). They don't draw distinctions between PCs and consoles. Some like `twitchy` games, some like RPGs, strategy games, etc.

Re:Old School

[ImpTech]

The technical reason *is* the user input devices. Anybody will tell you that FPS games are terrible on consoles because of the controller, but strategy games really suffer the same problem. I would cry if I had to play Civ3 without a mouse, nevermind RTS games.

If consoles would do a standard USB interface and let me plug in a keyboard and mouse, then they could really take over the market. They won't, though, because thats exactly not the way they're designed to be used. The mantra of a good console system is to do one thing and do it well, and the keyboard and mouse are not part of that plan, nor do I think they will be. Even if they were introduced, chances are the console manufacturer wouldn't allow standard parts, so you'd have to buy the "XBox" USB mouse, which will of course run you $40 at a minimum. Adoption will be sparse, and people will continue to play Warcraft on their PC's, because lets face it, the PC platform isn't going to disappear, it does so much more than just play games.

Re:Old School

[Anonymous Coward]

What about stuff like Final Fantasy?

Back in the day when Square made games for Nintendo and not Playstation, and an occasional RPG "cinematic" consisted of the game's standard 2-D sprites, I used to play those old RPGs a lot. An RPG like that is just something that you can't pull off quite the same way on a PC, in my opinion. It needs the simplicity of a directional pad and a two-to-six button controller.

Re:Old School

[nautical9]

But twitchers can be fun, too - and more and more FPS's are tending towards a healthy mix of stealth and adrenaline-pumping action instead of an all-out constant frag-fest (see the most-excellent FarCry for a perfect example, but also Thief, original Deus Ex, System Shock 2, even Call of Duty and other war shooters).

And although it's more expensive to keep your hardware current in the PC gaming market (FarCry's recommended specs are basically the state-of-the-art right now), the added resolution and eye-candy are truely breathtaking. I still chuckle at my friends when they're playing their XBox or PS2 games - they look like crap! Not that graphics alone make the game, but they sure do add to the immersion.

And I just can't seem to grasp why people like playing FPS's on consoles - the tiny little joystick is quite plainly no match for a mouse/WASD configuration. Plus the ultra-low resolution of a TV makes long-distance combat nearly impossible (assuming the console can even handle a large map).

I recently played Time Splitters with some buddies on the XBox in a 4-way split-screen match, and I was utterly disappointed. You'd have to get within 20 virtual feet before you'd even see a guy, and since he looked like a stick-man running by, it was very hard to tell if he was friend or foe.

Consoles excel at other types of twitchers - side-scrollers, fighting games, sports games - where super-tight control, accuracy, and resolution isn't necessary. But those controllers are hell for those of us used to the mouse, at least for FPS's, RTS's, and RPG's.

Personally, I can't wait for the day they make a cross-platform shooter (say XBox/PC) that allows the two clientiel to match up against each other. The poor console boys will get head-shotted from afar before they have time to turn around. As an added bonus, they won't be able to reply to the "lolol!!1! u sux0rs, n00b!! 1 Pw3nd j00!" heckles.

Re:Old School

[ahuimanu]

I dunno, I agree that buying a vid card that costs more than a console is tough, but I think the mouse is a far superior input device for most FPS than a controller for a console. Consoles are what we played when I was a kid because the commodore 64 was far more expensive than an Atari etc (ditto Apple IIe).

I think the quality of PC games is always higher and some genres, like flight simulators, belong on a PC.

J-

Re:Old School

[Minna Kirai]

The poor console boys will get head-shotted from afar before they have time to turn around.

Except that in the name of "fairness", the programmers will have given the console-version such a forgiving auto-aim that the consolers can be pumping rounds into you before they even know you're there. (They they push right trigger to target the next closest enemy, and repeat...)

The PC players, of course, will only have bullets that go exactly where pointed.

Re:Old School

[Minna Kirai]

If consoles would do a standard USB interface and let me plug in a keyboard and mouse, then they could really take over the market.

But they can't do this... it violates their furniture form-factor.

Now that consoles have close to parity with PC power, the single largest factor sending console and PC games down different design paths is: couch or desk.

A PC goes on a desk, which is a surface which holds your input devices in front of you while in use. Consoles go under a TV in front of a couch, a situation where the player has no way to store input devices besides his own hands.

This means that all console input devices must be fundamentally less powerful than for a PC, because the user doesn't only need to operate the device; she also must hold it in the air.

Mice, keyboards, flightsticks, and steering wheels will all remain basically incompatible with consoles until humanity either

1. Invents portable antigrav
2. Genetically engineers people with four arms
3. Gives up the the TV+couch living from layout

Which will happen first?

Re:Old School

[bolthole]

Consoles ALREADY DO THIS.
the PS2 has an absolutely standard USB port.
It's just a matter of convincing the game writers to code for it.

There are some games that support a USB mouse. All they have to do is code to the "HID standard" for a USB mouse, and (almost) any USB mouse will work. It's just that the writers dont do that.

Re:Old School

[CronoCloud]

You've never played the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games or Final Fantasy Tactics games have you. Or if you really want to give your brain a workout there is always Carnage Heart. Or you can play the ports of the PC strategy games. X-com for example or Civilization.

Ever play Quake II on the PSone? The best supported control scheme worked like this. Dual shock in the left hand, PSone mouse in the right. Best method ever. analog stick blows away WASD and the mouse gives you accurate targeting.

I've tried playing PS2 FPS's with keyboard movement and it is just so nonintuitive. a key to move and then hold another to run. While with a stick it's press lightly to walk press harder to move faster. So much better.So I use the hybrid set up on those too. Works fine.

Shooters designed specifically for consoles are a different story, they usually play fine with just the Dual shock.

Re:Old School

[CronoCloud]

I will be moving with my proper analog stich movement.Allowing me to creep, walk or run depending on how far I move the stick>

Also since my Playstation 2 has 2 USB ports I will have a USB mouse plugged in for accurate aiming. I will also have a USB head set plugged in so I can actually say "You just got fragged by PS2 owner, elitist PC owner." My mouse will actually be plugged into the USB port on the side of my keyboard so after the game I can type "I'm an 37337 g8m3r d00d". just like all the 12 year olds (and those who act like them) on their PC's.

I am so surprised at the number of PC gamers who do not seem to know about those USB ports on EVERY Playstation 2.

Re:Old School

[CronoCloud]

Just use a lap pad or TV dinner tray table or similar small table. An udjustable laptop table might be ideal.

Re:Old School

[CronoCloud]

I can't believe that it's been over 3 years since the Playstation 2 came out and some people still don't know that it has USB ports. Where have you been?

Re:Old School

[CronoCloud]

It's also agonizing to try to use WASD for movement when you are used to a proper analog stick movement. Perhaps a little more practice would give you the manual dexterity to be able to use those sticks properly. You PC gamers are so ham handed. :-)

Re:Old School

[CronoCloud]

You did know that Civ II and Warcraft did get ported to the PSone, didn't you? I guess not.

And why do PC gamers get to define what is or is not a strategy game.

Re:Old School

[Minna Kirai]

Just use a lap pad or TV dinner tray table or similar small table. An udjustable laptop table might be ideal.

I haven't tried these "laptop tables", but a TV dinner tray certainly won't work. They're just too flimsy. And, small tables like that force you to lean forward over them, not sink back into the couch (for maximum potato-comfort)

No console games for me

[Omnifarious]

I don't even have a TV to connect a console up to, and haven't had one in years. The idea of buying a piece of hardware just to play games on is mildly offensive to me. But the high levels of DRM (note, that I have purchased every single game I've played in the past 5 years) on them is extremely offensive to me.

So, no console games for me. If they can't make them for a PC (and preferably Linux), I don't need to play them.

Re:No console games for me

[SlamMan]

Of course you don't need to play them. Its a game.

Re:No console games for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all video game consoles have solutions for people who don't want to use them on TVs or can't for whatever reason. The Dreamcast's was particularly elegant, and ended up making an interesting point for me, which was that everyone seemed to care about video game graphics, but didn't seem to think that the limitations of TV picture tube graphics were an issue. Now, I'm not sure about the other consoles (my Gamecube is currently hooked up to my new TV), I know that they all have something even if it isn't as well designed as the Dreamcast's monitor output was.

So you don't need a TV to play any of the consoles, just a monitor and some powered speakers.

Console game DRM is offensive, but remember that DRM is being put into every kind of content available (we'll have it in books soon). I just try to buy the games used as much as possible, and usually end up hacking my consoles to get around DRM, anyway. (Though I still haven't picked up Freeloader for my Gamecube.) Besides, it seems to me that I have to use Gamedrive in order to play most of my PC games without having to have the physical disk in the machine, so I don't see how PC game DRM is any different.

Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at the trends.

The expensive general desktop computer boom is over. The future growth is in smaller consumer friendly products like iPods, cellphones, and PS2s.

Re:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant

[rhiorg]

...unless of course you're into the whole "getting work done" thing.

Re:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant

[sirdude]

I'd say that the boom is not at all over, but is still progressing... The basic idea is that the personal computer is just getting smaller and more personal every year. iPods, cellphones, digital cameras and PDAs will all be amalgamated into something like a smartphone (which is well on it's way in this respect). Re: Consoles.. I think that the basic selling point of consoles is that

a) You don't need to buy a PC
b) It offers cheap multiplayer gaming without need for internet access (which is also possible now).

But I don't believe that console games offer any better an experience than a PC game. As broadband takes over, PC's become cheaper, and it gets to the stage that every person needs to have one, the two reasons stated above will also be nullified.

Regardless, I don't think that the PC gaming industry is withering at all. In fact, with untapped (commercially) markets in countries such as India and China (which are PC-rich), I'd say the PC gaming boom is yet to take place..

Re:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant

[spellraiser]

Uhh - isn't that because everyone already has a desktop computer? :-)

Geeks always need gadgets; the smaller devices are just what they (and others) are buying right now ...

Re:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

And how you are going to put stuff in your iPod without a PC? There aren't many CD/DVD players with MP3 encoding and firewire output...

Re:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh..no...

Everyone who can AFFORD a desktop computer has one. The vast majority of the planet can't afford desktop systems.

Guess where the growth will come from?

Cheaper computing devices. Like, say...the PS2.

Re:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

growth != market size

Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[jjsaul]

I love to be able to play against my console-loving nephews with a mouse-keyboard setup. Maybe I'd finally stop giving them the boundless amusement of slapping around Uncle Jim!

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Psmylie]

FFXI allows both, on the same servers.

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is at least one. Its called Final Fantasy XI, available on both PC and PS2

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Maestro4k]

• I love to be able to play against my console-loving nephews with a mouse-keyboard setup. Maybe I'd finally stop giving them the boundless amusement of slapping around Uncle Jim!

Once FF XI is released here for the PS2 it's one that is playable by both PS2 and PC games. Currently it's only available for the PC since Sony is delaying the PS2 hard drive launch (required by FF XI) for some reason. The hard drive's been out in Japan for at least a year now, so I'm not sure what the issues are.

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Jaguar777]

I love to be able to play against my console-loving nephews with a mouse-keyboard setup. Maybe I'd finally stop giving them the boundless amusement of slapping around Uncle Jim!

No thanks. I would rather keep the console and PC platform seperate when it comes to online play. I pay for Xbox Live for three reasons.
1) It is extremely hard to cheat using the Xbox + Xbox Live system.
2) High speed connections are required (read: No shooting at a 56K players lagging all over the place)
3) Level playing field (everybody plays with the same graphic settings / options. HDTV being the exception)

If gaming networks mixed PC players with console players I would cancel Xbox Live because I can get the same service for free elsewhere. I'm pretty sure the majority of subscribers feel that way too.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Live is "better" than plain internet multiplayer. I still play that way too. I just enjoy the clean sandbox benefits that Live brings to the table.

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[EulerX07]

The FFXI + hd PS2 combo was released 4 days ago. Basically they made the game available to japanese at first, polished it up and made one expansion. Then they released to PC, and had a 6 month to iron out more details, and then they released for the biggest gaming market, english-language PS2.

This has the unfortunate side effect that some players got a head start, but all the really bad problems have been fixed, which avoids a "Star Wars : Galaxies" type fiasco.

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Anonymous Coward]

playing FPS games on xbox is for gimps. it's true about the cheating thing but the whole game in general is pretty much different, all slowed downand adjusted for the gimp input controller. if they let xbox cs players onto pc cs servers you'd all be raped into oblivian just from the pure superiority of the mouse/kb setup. Other factors aswell such as the resolution of the game and generally you sit closer to a computer monitor vs a tv, you can see those 2 pixles of someones head way off in the distance vs them being lost in the clutter of scanlines.

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Anonymous Coward]

These new consoles suck! BRING BACK MY NES!

People who prefer consoles for gaming are obviously ignoring the BIG transition of today's consoles which are more like Entertainment Systems capable of doing all kind of tasks just like a PC. This is why the PC will always be superior and more efficient. Consoles aren't what they used to be. With old consoles, u could play like a frikin maniac for DAYS & DAYS non-stop.

yesyes its true, its fair, everybody in consoles play with same performance but most of the time, lets say u have action on the screen, a game will tend to slow down like SOCOM (which my friend loves). Solution? DIEEEEEEEe unless u get a PC and learn to optimize what you want.

GOT IT NOOBS

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[CodeMunch]

2) High speed connections are required (read: No shooting at a 56K players lagging all over the place) 3) Level playing field (everybody plays with the same graphic settings / options. HDTV being the exception)

You could limit to High speed requirement on PC games too - it isn't a console "feature"
I prefer my good looking PC graphics to the unrecognizable grainy T.V. blobs.

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Nafai7]

To expand on that, the Japanese have had PC and PS2 version for quiet a while. The English PC version came out last fall, and the PS2 was just released recently.

I have been playing on PC for several months now, and the influx of PS2ers is big news in the game. Things are going well however. Most of the PS2 noobs have broadband, and while there is some difference between the two groups, they are getting along just fine.

The PS2 folk are finding out they need spend a bit of extra cash on a USB keyboard in order to properly communicate with the rest of us, so when all is said and done, FFXI is probably the most expensive PS2 game ever! ($100 game+hard disk; $40 USB keybard, $whatever for network interface, plus $13+/month for access to the servers, plus $$ for internet connection).

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Blakey Rat]

They can, but they don't. Even brand-spanking-new MMORPGs like Horizons or Star Wars Galaxies claim to support 56k modem users. (Although I can only imagine how crappy that support is...)

So for all practical purposes, the grandparent is right. One of the advantages that Microsoft has by producing a game console that doesn't require making a profit is that they can make decisions like this that greatly limit their playerbase. (Fewer people, perhaps, but a MUCH better experience for the broadband users who subscribe.)

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[dR.fuZZo]

Once FF XI is released here for the PS2 it's one that is playable by both PS2 and PC games. Currently it's only available for the PC since Sony is delaying the PS2 hard drive launch (required by FF XI) for some reason. The hard drive's been out in Japan for at least a year now, so I'm not sure what the issues are.

Final Fantasy XI comes with the hard drive. That's why it costs a hundred bucks. And, last time I was at Target, they had the game in stock (on sale for about $85.)

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[cheekyboy]

FF11 is basically on the 40gig HD you buy, so there is no DVD.

Its basically a 40gig cartridge ;-) not bad, but pitty its $100, since a 40gig should cost $30+$30 for game.

But will that HD be usuable for anything else besides FF stuff?

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[CronoCloud]

I just got the PS2 version on the 24th. It's been taking some getting used to. I've been playing EQOA and the FFXI controls are much different that it's confusing me. I think they could have done a better job on the PS2 UI. I do have a keyboard and mouse (a proper PS2 badged set from my Linux kit) so that helps. So far I've been moving with the analog stick and doing some stuff with the buttons but some things are easier with the keyboard. I will say that unlike EQOA where you can just barely get by without a keyboard, you NEED one for FFXI.

It's been going ok I think too, everyones been getting along.

Yes it is expensive, but I already had broadband (got for the Linux kit) and network adapter for the second PS2 (purchased so I'd have the adapter disc just in case and so I could get TMGO.)

Yes that's right I have two PS2's both now with HD's midgar (linux kit) and nibelheim (FFXI)

Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs?

[Anonymous Coward]

> But will that HD be usuable for anything else besides FF stuff?

hacking and modding ofcourse !

What about the workplace?

[Bander]

If games stop coming out computers, how will we play them at work? My boss isn't going to be okay with me bringing in a PS2, but he doesn't mind if I play a round of Crimsonland to blow off a little stress now and then.

Bander

Re:What about the workplace?

[Felinoid]

The above isn't far from the truth.
Many businesses don't mind if you play games they are more conserned about the game console and TV eating desk space when it is time to be productive.

My boss is the same way. I don't do much of anything so it's not an issue if I play games or code or read during my non-productive hours(days?) as long as I'm able to drop everything the instant I'm needed.
(I am not a System admin. Of course you System admin knew that but I'm tempted to wager tech support people might think that was an apt discription of the sysadmin job)

A video game console on the desk would trash productivity IF and WHEN something needs to get done.
The boss however has no problems with portable game devices so long as I can clear them off the desk in a hurry.

I hope not ...

[jasonsfa98]

We've already spent hundreds or even thousands on our PC's for gaming. No need to HAVE to buy a console either.

IRC, ICQ, Voice Comms, email, website's, they all help the PC be a more complete package for gaming (see The CPL).

PC's rule in my book.

Re:I hope not ...

[Knetzar]

I think the idea is that you spend a few hundred on a console INSTEAD of upgrading your PC.

Re:I hope not ...

[jasonsfa98]

Yeah but you eventually have to upgrade your PC regardless. When your movies, spreadsheets, office apps and everything else slow down, you upgrade. It just so happens that it helps the performance of you games too.

No consoles seem to have a shorter all around life for what they provide.

Less product, less functionality = console

Re:I hope not ...

[adept256]

So true. My AGP card alone costs as much as an Xbox. And I don't mind paying for that, because the graphics on my PC totally cream Xbox graphics on the same games.

Excepting games ported from the xbox, which always have terrible low-res textures, but run at much crisper resolutions anyhow.

Those looking for a premium gaming experience will always choose a PC.

Re:I hope not ...

[Scrameustache]

Those looking for a premium gaming experience will always choose a PC.

Premium gaming experience != Better graphics.

Old skool boyz like me had premium gaming experiences controlling a white dot defending our piles of blue lines from the falling orange lines coming to destroy them (on a black empty background, thank you very much).

I will always place gameplay, design and controlls above graphics. Always.
BTW, that's why I think Splinter Cell is lame. Because it makes real nice screenshots, but its NOT FUN TO PLAY.

I think it will stand here

[Guardian of Terra]

Because, show me game console equivalents of: Civilization Warcraft III ADOM :) Games of these genres does not exist on consoles, afaik. And i really need them, not something else. (I have never heard there are good FPS for consoles, while i don't know - not interested in) Consoles have their game-to-kill-weekend games market, but serious gamers will always like more intellegent devices.

Re:I think it will stand here

[Knetzar]

IMO consoles are best for games that are more social. I use a gamecube and a ps2, but usually I only play multiplayer games with others in the same room (Worms 3d, smash brothers, mario kart, etc...)

Re:I think it will stand here

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

FYI - Civilization is on the PSOne. (And of course PS2). Not a bad game, and they did it fairly well, but I'd still prefer to play it on the PC.

But, IMHO, Console games, when done well, far exceed anything I play on a PC. Besides for Civ, I play all my games on consoles. Very hard to ignore the fact that playing console games allows you to bask in 32" - 65" TV Glow goodness, while PC Monitors only give you a partial tan and retinal cancer.

Re:I think it will stand here

[Bastian]

Well, I don't know about Civilization, but SimCity was definitely in the Super Nintendo. And the game that started the whole RTS thing, Dune 2, was on the Sega Genesis.

Granted, consoles suffer on these games as well as FPS because of the lack of a keyboard and mouse and the low resolution of TV. These problems will go away in the future when HDTV is adopted and when console developers devise a controller that makes these games more playable. I doubt it will be a keyboard and mouse since that's not a good setup for multiple players sitting around the TV, but I'm sure soemthing will come out.

Re:I think it will stand here

[ajs]

ADOM was a great game. I really should go back and play it again. Did he ever release the source like he said he was going to?

For those who don't know ADOM is a roguelike game which is entirely rendered in ascii text in a terminal window.

What always drew me to roguelikes was the fact that, without flashy graphics, they had to depend entirely on their playability and depth of content in order to gain popularity. In other words, if your character is just an at-sign and your BFG is just the text "(right hand) BFG" in inventory, then something other than the picture of a hulking muscular guy holding a large phalic symbol spewing forth glowing bolts of death has to be there to keep you playing... In the case of ADOM it was an intricate quest system that spanned an entire countryside, and involved several dungeons, towns and special areas. The magic system was awesome and the HUGE list of playable races and classes was just great.

I also recommend Nethack, Angband, Omega and even the relatively light Larn.

Re:I think it will stand here

[dkf]

There's been a few. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis (?)

Whether there's been any good high quality strategy games on consoles recently is a better question.

Re:I think it will stand here

[Zangief]

Mmm. The only computer games that I play on my computer are Warcraft 3, UT2003 (against bots!) and Master of Orion.

But the things I play the most on it are emulators, say Zsnes, Gens, NeoRage, epsxe etc.

While Master of Orion is fun, I can't remember it making me laugh like Mario Kart Double Dash or Smash Brothers Melee. Sometimes you want to exercise your brain while playing, but consoles are good for this also; just grab FFTactics for the psone, or Fire Emblem for the GBA.

And since I work (and study) now, I want the best experience posible in the shortest amount of time. And blasting your friends with a red shell is way funnier than obliterating some planet after hours of planning.

Re:I think it will stand here

[Anonymous Coward]

they also had civ for the snes, but it sucks, civ is VERY hard to play without a keyboard, & the limited info screens dont help much either

Re:I think it will stand here

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont have anything against low-end graphics, but the ascii graphics is just a lil *too* low-end for me.

if they could upgrade it to sprite-based graphics (like ulitma IV or higher) itd be MUCH more playable

seems like i remember seeing a frontend for nethack that did just this.. do they have one for ADOM too?

Re:I think it will stand here

[Blakey Rat]

Or get a Mac emulator and find Mission: Thunderbolt. All of the depth and playability, none of the ridiculous ANSI graphics.

Re:I think it will stand here

[cptgrudge]

IMO consoles are best for games that are more social. Very true. The only games I buy for my consoles (PS2/Gamecube) anymore are games that can be played by multiple people in the same room. (Except for Final Fantasy games. I'm so weak...) A console is just another facet to gaming that my circle of friends have. In my mind, PC games and console games don'texclude the other.

Sure, it's fun to lug computers over to someone's house for a weekend and play LAN games. But if you have a couple hours to kill before going out for the evening, doing a bit of Crystal Chronicles with your friends is much more preferable. Yes, you need a GBA for every person, but believe me, it's worth it. I've actually saved money by buying this and all the needed equipment, since we'll choose to "Chron" instead of go out to the bar.

For us, short notice multiplayer is where it's at on consoles. Planned, weekend multiplayer gaming sessions is where it's at on the PC.

Re:I think it will stand here

[NotReallyApathetic]

I have to say that the split screen multiplayer offered by so many console titles drives me nuts. I am fortunate enough to have 6 PCs in my house, all networked together. My friends and I have a blast with Counter Strike, Halo, UT2004, and MechWarrior 4, just to name a few. My PC multiplayer experience is at least 10 times better than any I have ever had on a console. That being said, I have to concede that multiplayer Baldur's Gate on the Xbox is pretty cool. However, that was a pc franchise first ;-)

Re:I think it will stand here

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me the PC equivalents of: F-Zero GX, Ninja Gaiden, Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Rez, Viewtiful Joe, and Panzer Dragoon Orta, and I'll concede that you have a point.

I think consoles win on the diversity question, actually.

Re:I think it will stand here

[ajs]

"ridiculous ANSI graphics"

I'm not sure I buy that phrase. The display for Nethack, ADOM, etc. displays as much information as I tend to need in a single-person, turn-based, fantasy adventure RPG. Why do I need flashy graphics? Are they there to distract me from something else?

If I want great art, I can get CDs full of wonderful pictures, but that's not why I play a game: I play it for the challenge.

Now, I'm not saying Mission: Thunderbolt doesn't have anything going for it. It might be a great game, but I don't see how snazzy graphics are anything more than a selling point for people who have not already come to understand what these games have to offer.

-Harmil, 20th level @

PS: In the words of The Matrix, "after a while you don't even see them anymore... I just see" a dragon, a cockatrice, ...

Re:I think it will stand here

[ajs]

"seems like i remember seeing a frontend for nethack that did just this"

Yep, and just about everyone I know who tried both found that the graphics were distracting.

The thing about text is that it's about as compressed as you can get the information that you need, and still allow your brain to model a full 2D environment. I can keep track of a HECK of a lot more information when it's desplayed as text characters, rather than pictographs of some sort.

When you see someone playing ADOM or Nethack who really knows the game, you find that they are assimilating the information on the screen FAR faster than anyone could assimilate graphics. Graphics are just too complex and require too much processing to analyze.

It will eventually take over...

[Anonymous Coward]

Were are moving out of the era of the generalized computing device and into the era of the specific computing device. The are cheap enough now to make them to do specific things. PDA's, Cell Phones, PVR's, Game Consoles, Web Terminals... These are where Linux will win, because it will run on any of these things with minor modification, no need to wait for the "software vendor" to expand to the platform.

Re:It will eventually take over...

[CodeMunch]

Were are moving out of the era of the generalized computing device and into the era of the specific computing device.

Then why does my cell phone have a colour screen, camera, scheduler, office software, etcc? My GBA plays games AND mp3's.

Mod'ing games, eh?

[superhoe]

Mod'ing games is an aspect most hit games utilize to the maxx. And it rocks.

Unless the consoles can make mod'ing (especially on advanced level like on Operation Flashpoint, mmm I love that stuff) as easy as on PC, PC definitely won't die.

Re:Mod'ing games, eh?

[AnyNoMouse]

Unless the consoles can make mod'ing (especially on advanced level like on Operation Flashpoint, mmm I love that stuff) as easy as on PC, PC definitely won't die.

In the latest X-Box magazine, they've claimed that a future version of X-Box Live will include map-making abilities. They mentioned storing the maps online and being able to share them with friends.

Rumor? Vaporware? Who knows. In fact, they didn't even mention *when* these features would be available (though I'm guessing X-Box 2 not X-Box). It's not unfeasable, though, so I wouldn't rule it out completely.

Re:Mod'ing games, eh?

[stubear]

This is definitely possible for the XBOX and any future consoles that include network capabilities. Morrowind for the XBOX could have shipped with a seperate disc that you could pop into your PC and create your own maps and adventures then log into a special XBOX Live server for Morrowind and upload them. Since you have to have broadband to get a Live account it's highly unlikely that players wouldn't have a computer. They could also make it possible to view a special folder on your PC from the XBOX to test maps locally on the console before uploading them.

One could easily extend this to other forms of mdoding including creating new player skins and weapons. By making it possible to edit certain spreadsheet's one could create new weapons capabilities or edit current ones. Allow users to use GMAX to create wireframes and texture maps and voila, upload them in a similar manner as listed above and you've created a way to allow modding.

The one downside to this is this could open pandora's box to cheating. XBOX Live has built a system where it is virtually impossible to cheat and as far as I am aware no one has been able to get a modded XBOX to work on Live and allow them to cheat. Modding would have to be carefully implemented, as would what one can and cannot mod, and monitored to ensure cheating is not allowed by mistake.

Re:Mod'ing games, eh?

[Armatich_Defiant]

Making maps Mods. A mod can be a completely new game, such as Desert Combat is a free total conversion of Battlefield 1942. Derek

MS's XBox

[SubtleNuance]

When will IBM, HP, Dell and the like turn on MS for directly competing with them. The number 1 rule of honest business is 'dont compete with your customers' -- Im sure that MS's effort to ruin PC based gaming (by creating the Xbox in the first place and directing developers) should be a sign to the BigPCVendors that they are getting stabbed in the heart.

Re:MS's XBox

[twelvestring]

Although it makes sense not to compete with your customers - most of IBM/HP/Dell's customers are not making a choice between buying a PC and an Xbox. They're two completely different products with different functions.

PC

[blogboy]

Me, I have to take the PS2 out of the media cabinet and hook it up to play. With the PC I can take a break from work and crank up UT2004, or even get my gaming fix from a quick game of Columns. Since I'll always have a PC, I'll just keep that hardware current, piece at a time, to support the latest games, rather than saving up for PS3. The PC is functional *and* fun.

Re:PC

[Scrameustache]

Since I'll always have a PC, I'll just keep that hardware current, piece at a time, to support the latest games, rather than saving up for PS3.

You are dellusionnal my boy.

Of course you have to save up to buy a PS3, you spent 10 times its price upgrading your computer!

A piece at a time? A graphics card that will be able to play the newest games for a year at best costs more than a console that will get you at least 3 years worth of the newsest games.

Sure, PC gaming has its place, but price economy is NOT one of its advantages, jeez.

Re:PC

[sqlrob]

Sure, PC gaming has its place, but price economy is NOT one of its advantages, jeez.

Actually it is, but it may not even out in the end depending on how many games you buy.

Look at how fast the price drops on computer games, or even prices of current games on Console v. PC (Simpson's Hit & Run: Currently $49.99 on PS2, $29.99 on PC)

Re:PC

[CronoCloud]

the reason they get discounted so fast is because they don't sell. The console version of a game might sell 10x as many copies as the PC version.

Better screens?

[Talence]

I'd say that PC gaming offers various advantages including better screens, more flexibility in terms of choice of hardware, more flexibility in application (not just gaming, but also e.g. word processing), storage of games (harddisk), etc.

One could argue that consoles could be gearing towards the above-mentioned advantages too, but wouldn't they inherently be turning into PCs then?

Re:Better screens?

[DigiShaman]

I would agree. Some games that require small text (such as massive multiplayer games) REQUIRE a high res monitor. Your standard NTSC or PAL TV will not cut it. So untill HDTV because as cheap as owning a console, there will always be a PC gaming market simply because of the availability of the PC monitor.

Re:Better screens?

[RatBastard]

It's the inflexibility of the hardware that makes consoles able to play the games written for them. Show me ANY 733Mhz PC that can play Halo at all! Or a system with the same specs as a PS2 play any of the GTA series. It's not going to happen.

Re:Better screens?

[corban.elektrolite]

Some games that require small text (such as massive multiplayer games) REQUIRE a high res monitor.

something like mmpgs do look like games, but they are not real games. they are applications used for gaming. i think that gaming is about fun and about having a good time, and any information that is not recognized from the PAL (or NTSC) standard (like 7px text) has no place in a game. ah, yes, period.

Re:Better screens?

[CronoCloud]

Who says that MMORPGS require small text? That's a UI design issue. Any company with half a brain could designe an MMORPG that is quite legible on an NTSC screen.

You've never played Everquest Online Adventures or FFXI on a Playstation 2, have you.

Without PC games

[tepples]

The difference between PCs and consoles is not the input but rather that PCs don't need a modchip in order to run user-written code (even though unsigned code and signed code run in separate but equal sandboxes in newer restrictions-management-enabled operating systems). Only PCs allow programmers to make games without getting a license from the hardware manufacturer, and console makers tend to grant licenses only to established publishers, reinforcing the oligopoly. Without PC games, how is anybody supposed to begin to learn to develop games?

Thats a very "simplified" approach

[Anonymous Coward]

750,000 XBOX live users. Great. And how many non-console users? Decline my left foot.

Looks at UT2004 for example. How many keys do you regularly use there? No. Consoles simply aren't going that way. Unless you get a keyboard. And a hard drive. Oh wait, I've turned my console into a personal computer.

MMORPGS don't all charge either. Look at Neverwinter Nights.

The article is badly written, takes an over simplified approach and is obviously written by someone who has never played a game "online".

Thank goodness for Microsoft, then...

[bennomatic]

My understanding is that they are stepping in to save the PC by uniting the X-Box and Windows game development environment.

Re:Thank goodness for Microsoft, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are trying to save Xbox by making porting easier.

Re:Thank goodness for Microsoft, then...

[Tokerat]

That would be the first thing I'd really cheer Microsoft for doing in a long time.

Of course, if XBox2 ends up being PowerPC, that might still make things difficult for the x86 game world. PowerPC isn't merely a different set of opcodes...

Re:Thank goodness for Microsoft, then...

[mr.capaneus]

I think that will do more to destroy PC gaming than anything else. If I see another half-assed PC/Xbox/PS2/GC game I am going to puke. Rather than being an exceptional game on one platform, they are mediocre on all of them. I really enjoyed playing KOTOR but I think it could have been a much better game if developed solely for the PC. When I compare it to a game like Baldur's Gate 2, it is shallow and the controls are lame. The more PC game publishers that get lured over to the Xbox, the worse PC gaming is going to get.

suddenly more productive

[Phrack]

Since I don't like consoles, if all the games went that way, I'd suddenly have more time to do other things.

Re:suddenly more productive

[Jaysyn]

Nah, you just spend more times on the games you already have & enjoy. Show of hands, who here still plays Master of Magic?

Jaysyn

Depends on what you play

[Hekatchu]

To me Its a matter of the game, simple, FPS-type and jumping and bouncing like a mad rabbit type of games are absolutely best when there is console with decent gear involved. Then again, complex RPG:s (or did they already die 10 years ago?) and games where you are allowed to think before you act are in my mind always going to be better with real computer environment. But its only my opinion :)

Re:Depends on what you play

[Jubedgy]

Personally, I don't see how anyone can play FPS games on a console (wrt the controls). I've tried goldeneye (a couple years ago) and halo (more recently) and both of them just seemed to have very kludgy controls compared to the keyboard and mouse.

If you had players on computers play against players on consoles, who would win? I'd vote for the comp guys, but then again I'm pretty biased.

Re:Depends on what you play

[JonasG]

Exactly. I play a lot of strategy games, and I've never played one on a console. At the same time some types of games are not good to play on computers. I think they are just good for different types of games.

Because of that I think computer and console games will co-exist. Sure, consoles may take a big piece of the market, but the computer games will survive.

Re:Depends on what you play

[Hekatchu]

I think you are right there about FPS games, my mistake. I was just thinking about mindless shooting and associating it with Xbox, sorry ;)

Re:Depends on what you play

[Anonymous Coward]

The console guys would be utterly crushed.

There's no beating a mouse and keyboard for any FPS. This may seem a bit self-righteous but; I'd go so far as to say that people who will argue that console controllers are better than keyboard/mouse just haven't gamed enough with a keyboard and mouse. They're just flat out wrong.

Re:Depends on what you play

[sindarin2001]

I couldn't agree more with you. I am what I consider a well rounded gamer. I like consoles for some sects of games: simpiler RPGs, some action, fighting, racing, platformers. The controls just feel right. Then there's RTS and FPS for the computer, great controls for more complicated movements or more precise movements. Oh, and then there's Descent...I have never been able to play that game with less than 16 buttons, so I can never see something that complicated on a console.

Re:Depends on what you play

[Jaysyn]

I've heard that Ferraro was designing a Claw+Mouse combo controller for the X-Box. This is all I could find on it however.

Jaysyn

Re:Depends on what you play

[iainl]

Yes, the guys on pads would be beaten by those using a mouse to aim.

However, I'd ask why it matters. If the game is written with the control scheme that will be used in mind, I don't care. Sure, Goldeneye would be a lot easier with a mouse. It would be easier if I used auto-aim, as well. It would be really, really easy if I used an aimbot. But if the balance is designed for a pad-user, then it'll be most fun on a pad.

So you don't want to stick pad users up against mouse users, like Dreamcast Quake 3 did, because the result was a massacre. But that doesn't mean that no console FPS can be fun to play. And fun to play is the be-all, end-all as far as I'm concerned.

PC will dominate

[aquabat]

Last time I checked, I couldn't emulate a PS2 game on an X-Box.

Granted, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but you can hit a lot of things with a hammer that aren't nails and still get the job done. Try that with an impact drill.

I think the versatility of a general purpose machine will win out in the long run over a specialized machine.

Two words: LAN party

[bliSSter138]

I host a local LAN event and even if/when I've seen consoles at said events, there was only one. No one that I know wants to lug a 32"+ television around. 17" LCD, oh yeah. Shuttle (or comparable mini-) PC - you bet. I can appreciate where console gaming is headed - it's needed to step up to the level of the PC experience for a while. At the same time, console gaming still, INHO, pales in comparison to gaming on a personal computer.

The types of games that I, and most of our LAN attendees, play on a PC are dramatically different than a comparable console title. The Battlefield and UT2k series are beautiful examples. I have friends with Xboxes that hated UT Championship and I can't even fathom trying to play BF on a game pad. These games still harbor mass followings on the PC platform. At the same time, Splinter Cell is amazing on a console, and marginal at best on my PC.

P.S. - Halo PC ran SO horribly on my system (Athlon 2500+, 1GB ram, 256MB Radeon Pro video), that I invoked MS' 30-day money-back guarantee. They were prompt with the refund so, apparently they are good for something. :-P

Re:Two words: LAN party

[Lukey Boy]

I have a similar system as you - AMD 2500+ Barton, 512 megabytes of RAM and a 128 megabyte Radeon PRO. Halo ran flawlessly on it (I grabbed it as soon as the first patch was released), and it looked awesome.

It's a shame that it got really, really boring after the first couple of hours.

Re:Two words: LAN party

[AnyNoMouse]

P.S. - Halo PC ran SO horribly on my system (Athlon 2500+, 1GB ram, 256MB Radeon Pro video), that I invoked MS' 30-day money-back guarantee. They were prompt with the refund so, apparently they are good for something. :-P

I've got a Athlon 2400+, 1.5GB ram and a softmodded Radeon 9500->9700. I ran it at 1024x768 wihtout FSAA and for the most part it ran just fine with all of the details turned up. It stuttered occasionally on "level" changes, but then so did the X-Box version.

It is good to see at least one vendor offering a 30-day money-back gaurantee, though... that's been my biggest complaint about software for several years -- you can't return it if it doesn't do what you want

Re:Two words: LAN party

[novakane007]

DAMN!! I didn't even think of the 30 day garuntee! I played Halo PC version twice and stuffed it back in the box. It's sat there since.

Re:Two words: LAN party

[angle_slam]

1) You can connect an XBox or a PS2 to a 17" LCD. 2) an Xbox or PS2 is relatively close in size to a Shuttle PC.

Disposable Income?

[Gothmolly]

In a supposedly down economy, where people are losing jobs left and right, how do we come up with the cash and time to buy both PC games and consoles?

Re:Disposable Income?

[Zathrus]

In a supposedly down economy, where people are losing jobs left and right, how do we come up with the cash and time to buy both PC games and consoles?

Uh, because not everyone is unemployed?

If you're unemployed then, yeah, buying a new game console (or a new gaming video card for your PC) might not be the smartest thing. Yeah, you won't be able to play Ninja Gaiden, or Doom3, or whatever, but that's really the least of your worries.

If you are employed, and have sufficient savings (my wife and I have enough savings for 6 months of unemployment with absolutely 0 income; I hope we never have to use it), then you can certainly "splurge" on a new toy.

Re:Disposable Income?

[Ankou]

Actually I never played so many games in my life until I was unemployed for a year. Searching for jobs is about the same as having a job, its only good 9-5 and then you got the waiting factor. Calling people all day only to get shut down left and right put me in quite a depression. I needed the release of a good involving video game. If what you said was true and no one would splurge even with the lack of jobs, then why is it that alcohol, cigs, etc go up in sales when the US is in a recession. Of all the adictive self medicating things out there, video games is quite harmless indulgence.

Re:Disposable Income?

[ajs]

Recessions are classically a gold-mine for entertainment. Just look at the boom in hollywood during the great depression.

Re:Disposable Income?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll get flamebait for this but...

Society is having a major problem with entertainment obscession, which I've heard being cited as one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.

Think about it. The economy is tanked, jobs are flying out the window to other countries - this should be a grave time and people should be looking to better the country and improve the situation.

Instead movies are still breaking profit records, gamming is massivly up, amusment parks are stuffed with people, etc. I'm not saying society as we know it will implode for this reason alone, but you have to wonder how much people are becomming oblivious to things around them because so much of their attention is focused on being entertained.

Re:Disposable Income?

[Fjord]

You should consider using your savings to pay down your mortgage and then open a HELOC. If you don't own a home, you should consider buying one.

Re:Disposable Income?

[Zathrus]

A HELOC, as with any other line of credit, is revokable upon change in status (like, oh say, becoming unemployed). Yes, banks generally don't notice this kind of thing, but if you got in serious trouble then things could become even worse when the bank finds out you failed to report a change of status prior to using the credit.

As it is, we pay roughly an additional 50% per month to pay down our principle... at going rates we probably have $80-100k in equity.

Really do need to better utilize the emergency fund money, but relying on a HELOC isn't what I'd want to do.

Re:Disposable Income?

[corban.elektrolite]

my wife and I have enough savings for 6 months of unemployment with absolutely 0 income; I hope we never have to use it

do you have an ego problem or why did you wrote that? i has no effect on your argument nor on the subject.

Re:Disposable Income?

[Fjord]

My understanding from my lender is that they don't care about my employment status as long as my loan:home value is under 80% (may vary by state). So, I'd report the change in status. HELOC are designed for disaster situations, so lenders are sympathetic to job loss. But you should ask your lender these questions up front and get it in writing (just a faxed memo will do) to put you mind at ease. If they don't say that job loss is fine (that would vary by company and by state), then you are right, it's not a good proposition.

I wasn't really telling you that's what you should do, just that you should consider it. There are other risks, like you may borrow on your HELOC and then have rates go up before it's paid off. This is weighed against the interest savings both in the amount of your savings, but in the increased principle you'd be paying off. Ultimately, you have to accept whatever risk you're comfortable with.

Finally, I might suggest purchasing and investment property and renting it, but it is a lot of work.

Well

[GFLPraxis]

It seems to me that FPS games play better on the computer, while the majority of other action games play better on the console. I generally buy games for console first, UNLESS the game supports Internet play, in which case I buy it for PC so I can play online. I have Zelda: Ocarina of Time for N64 and I downloaded the ROM of it to see how it'd play on the PC, and slamming keys on the keyboard is vastly inferior to using a controller. On the other hand, I could never stand playing a game like Jedi Knight 2 and Jedi Academy on a console with dual joysticks- I WANT A MOUSE. A game like Zelda: The Wind Waker is better on a console, and a game like Jedi Knight 2 is better on the PC.

console vs. pc

[mixtape5]

The age of the console is comming. While PC's own the MMORPG catagory right now, the console has many advantages. You are garenteed that your game will work on your machine, Communication through the headset can compensate for not having a keyboard, consoles are cheaper than computers, MMORPG dont take up Massive Memory Ammounts when on a console.

Didn'd /. have an arguement like this going the other day?

If other OSes gain popularity...

[MolecularBear]

If other OSes (i.e. Linux) gain popularity in the desktop market, then I would expect even more games to move to a console market. Let's imagine that Linux becomes so popular that it shares the desktop realm with Windows 50/50. Now a game developer must make the game cross-platform. Instead of dealing with issues with one OS, they now have to deal with two. At that point, it seems like it would be much easier to simply develop for a console where both hardware and software are known constants. Anyone else have ideas/opinions about this?

Re:If other OSes gain popularity...

[Vreejack]

How would two OS's be a burden compared to the multitude of gaming consoles already in existence?

And while an individual console may provide a homogenous platform base, it is a low-end base compared to what is usually available on a desktop. Of course, console players seem to be quite satisfied with blurry, low-frame-rate graphics, so maybe that is not an issue.

vreejack

Re:If other OSes gain popularity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the poor developer. What are they going to choose between Sony (Playstation), Nintendo (Game Cube), and MS (XBox)? But wait, if they choose OpenGL, I hear it's very portable.

The move to consoles is so you can't easily copy the game and give it to your friends because it requires hardware mods to play.

multiple factors

[Lust]

I'm very concerned about this. With the console market so strong (and why not, with the cost of a PS2/Xbox system less than just an average-quality video card), I don't see any way a game company can afford NOT to develop for a console. And so will we see the end of games like Starcraft that really can't work as effectively without better UI?

I really hope not, but we've already seen posts about Deus Ex II having a crappy interface that parallels that required for a console.

I had an opportunity to play Metroid Prime recently, given all its hype. I was very impressed with the game from graphics to story, but I got too frustrated by the controls. I couldn't stop thinking how easy these things I was TRYING to do were on a keyboard/mouse combo, but were complicated on the console by trying to press three buttons at once while moving one or another stick. So I scrapped it for Tony Hawk, which is totally suited to a joystick/controller.

Please tell me that PC gaming will live forever :)

Re:multiple factors

[MysteriousPreacher]

Civlisation III suffered a bit in the UI. If I remember correctly, the buttons onscreen had little Xs, Os and squares. Sure, it makes sense if you're using a PS 2, not so much sense though if you're using a mouse on keyboard on a laptop.

Re:multiple factors

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, PC gaming is not going to live forever. Neither is console gaming for that matter. Neural implants are eventually going to replace external hardware that you interface with through some sort of manual controller.

Re:multiple factors

[Zathrus]

and why not, with the cost of a PS2/Xbox system less than just an average-quality video card

You can get an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro w/ 128MB for $120. That's more than a GameCube, but less than either system you mentioned.

Yes, that's only part of the system, but you can put together a very good system (AthXP 2500+, nForce2 MB, 512MB DDR3200, 40G HD, above video card, case, keyboard, mouse) for $525 ($617 once you include XP Home). Still much more than a console, but you can use it for a lot more than a console too. It'll also have better graphics, better networking capabilities, and can be used for things other than playing games (like posting on /.).

Of course, there are advantages to consoles too. They're a hell of a lot easier to setup and maintain. There are some games that have never done well on a PC -- fighting games for example. If you have friends who come over to play then having 2-4 people play head-to-head or cooperatively on a console is a helluva lot easier than it is with PCs, and the games are designed toward it too.

Consoles are closing ground in some areas, particularly networking. But they'll forever have controller issues, since some games just do better with a keyboard/mouse setup (and while they may be available on consoles, they'll always be rare). They'll probably be behind in graphics as well, since the absolute limit (in the US) is 1080i or 720p, both of which are easily surpassed by PCs currently. And while they may initially push more polygons, evolving technology on PCs will always eclipse the consoles within 6-12 months.

I mostly game on PCs, but I do have a PS2 now and it's definitely better suited to some kinds of gaming. They each have their place, and I hope each continues to exist for a long, long time.

Re:multiple factors

[edwdig]

I had an opportunity to play Metroid Prime recently, given all its hype. I was very impressed with the game from graphics to story, but I got too frustrated by the controls. I couldn't stop thinking how easy these things I was TRYING to do were on a keyboard/mouse combo, but were complicated on the console by trying to press three buttons at once while moving one or another stick.

You'll truely appreciate the controls of Metroid Prime when you get further into the game. Particuarlly in the boss fights.

With traditional FPS controls, you're focusing on your aim, and everything else is secondary. With Metroid Prime, you're focusing on moving with the aiming being a lower priority.

If you play Metroid Prime with the controls in mind, it works amazingly well. The game will be terrible if you treat it like an FPS. The only part of the controls that's weak is when you have to jump, look up, and use the grapling beam. Fortunately you only have to do that about twice in the game, and it's only for missle expansions.

Re:multiple factors

[Woy]

PC gaming will live for as long as PC's live. I am not worried at all about all the recent ramblings "PC GAMING IS GONNA DIE OMG OMG OMG" that show up every couple weeks. I follow pc gaming closely and illegally download most of the new releases, install them and delete them after 1 or 2 days. Truthfully, most of the aren't worth the download time, but in the middle of that there are some pearls, like warcraft3, for example, that i keep and buy the original game. It has been like this for years, and actually latelly i'm noticing some improvement. I don't follow console gaming too much because i dont own a console, but PC game is as far from dying as electricity. My guess is that these "news" come from reports and comments made by ppl that try to manipulate the IT industry and bought sony stock. If you have absolutelly no idea what the future holds for IT, i guess you write an article announcing as news what you would like to happen. I mean really, how can PC games die? The PC is there, it can run games, then it WILL run games. If companies dont want to make games for PC's, then independent developers will. Hell, _I_ will if needed.

If most companies focus on making games for consoles and crappy compromised interfaces on PC versions, then pc gamers will buy from companies that develop for PC. It's that simple, the money is there, some company will come for it.

Honestly, i believe consoles are doomed because of the growing trend of user-created content in games. In my opinion, in a few years from now a game that doesnt allow for user-created expansion won't be able to compete with one that does. And i don't mean changing your helmet colour, i mean scripting. Consoles will end up with the "simpler" games, where users just play what the developer did. Strange as it may seem now, we will one day find that as boring as watching TV nowadays.

Different Demographics

[RailGunner]

The PC as a gaming platform isn't going anywhere any time soon - and one of the reasons is that the PC Games market is different from the console market. Sure, there's some overlap like there is in any good Venn Diagram, but for the most part it's two distinct segments of the gaming community. For example: A friend of mine will only play PC games. Sure, he's a bit of an elitist, but he's not touching any "inferior console". He plays Call of Duty, Medal Of Honor, Warcraft 3, GTA3 / GTA3 Vice City, etc... My brother-in-law is a fireman, he owns a PS2 and plays Madden 2004, NHL 2004, NCAA Football 2004, SSX2, Tony Hawk's Underground, and has no intention of upgrading his PC to play games on it. There are those of us in the middle, who play both PC and (in my case PS2).

In the end, it's all about the games, not the console. Some games, even the multi-platform port releases, just seem to play better on one platform over the other. Madden 2004? I'd rather play it or any other sports games on my PS2. Unreal Tournament 2004 or any other FPS? PC. Warcraft 3 or any other RTS? PC. Button Mashing Fighting Game (Soul Caliber, Tekken) - PS2.

The PC as a gaming platform is far from dead - there's just too many of them in homes for game developers to ignore. Also, most of the biggest console games (GTA3 / Vice City) get ported to the OC, and in the case of GTA3, the graphics are FAR superior on the PC.

Re:Different Demographics

[b06r011]

i agree - i love playing some games on my pc, and others on a console (gamecube). i think it's as much to do with the interface style as anything else. driving games lend themselves to analogue joystick / pad controls, rts games can only really be played with a mouse, whereas fighing style games need a pad or stick, and fps can be either...

but it's also a social thing. the amount of effort required to set up a 4-player session of mario kart double dash, or timesplitters 2 is nothing compared to the time and effort required to set up even a small LAN party - even though they are great fun.

jus' a thought

console/pc

[mirko]

It's not only consoles or pc that die, it's only users that change.
The market is always changing and reinventing itself.
My generation enjoyed the Vcs2600, then the coleco, then...
Now, most of us feel less like playing.Some will keep playing the same Civilization or Transport Tycoon game after years, other may change for one of these 3D shoot em up which interest resides in the fact you can limit a party to a few minutes without making it less interesting.
Meanwhile, children are being more and more censored and control by their parents (our generation, indeed) and will sometimes prefer staying near the console/pc, depending on their overall mood.

And?

[21chrisp]

750,000 players use Xbox Live

And how many people play online games on their computer?? More than that I'm sure.. Online console games tend to have a much shorter lifespan also. Online computer games tend to stay around forever because for many of them players can also host their own games. Especially given the fact that online console gaming has only been around for a couple of years (discluding the Dreamcast of course.. RIP) one would expect either growth or a market failure. All this says is that online console gaming isn't a failure. Saying that it's taking over computer gaming?? That's going a bit far!

Room at The Top

[RetiefUnwound]

A lot of pundits on the topic of console vs. PC seem to keep ignoring a subset of PC gamers - the Power Gamer (we know who we are).

The top echelon of PC hardware will ALWAYS offer better performance than the latest console - and a lot of software houses (Lionhead comes to mind) are constantly seeking to push the envelope - not just graphically but in terms of AI and interactivity.

Consoles are great - but no substitute for the power of a screamin' PC box. Sure, PCs can be a pain in the ass to code for because of the mishmash of hardware on the market - but a lot of gamers will build new PCs to experience the best a new title has to offer. Knowing that this audience exists will keep software houses producing for the PC until there are no more games to be played. Nuff said.

A tetter totter of views

[tazanator]

It will always be a hard call, for the consol there is no driver upgrades and patches or security risks (yet) but the PC has more keys for more control over the game and the ability to add/change the game. For the games to change on the consol they have to take long periods of time to develop (Final Fantasy). For the computer they must be online for updates and downloads (America's Army). Both games have advantages and play great however the question will be do we want to buy new titles often or download new updates. The addition of a hard drive may help some for the consols but the PC will still have the larger control set. I guess the best hardware for the game depends really on the game after all doom got boring until new maps where made, but not having to search for drivers in order to play Final Fantasy made it fun too.

Console FPS.

[Colosse]

Well I belive that PC FPS are by far more superior to their console counterparts for one reason : Mouse aiming. It's much faster than the pad. And unless they add some kind of assist to console, if there ever is a internet server shared by PC and console players, the poor console guys will be cannon fodded.

Flawed comparison

[megagurka]

Consoles are great for fighting, platform games etc., but I think there will always be a market for PC games that have advanced graphics and a complex user interface. I would never play an RPG like NWN on a console using a TV as screen and gamepad for controls. These games require a PC with high resolution and a mouse and keyboard.

Oh great. Another PCs -vs- consoles war

[NetDanzr]

This topic has been beaten to death and beyond, so let me just repeat the most common arguments:

• Consoles are social gaming devices, PCs are anti-social. In other words, consoles encourage more than one person playing at the same machine, while PCs are much more solitary. On-line gaming is solitary. Thus, only if consoles transform into dumbed down PCs they would able to marginalize PCs as a gaming device.
• Consoles are living room appliances, PCs are office appliances. There still are games that require a keyboard to play, and believe it or not, there are still lots of gamers who like such games. These games will always remain on PCs.
• Consoles rely on royalties, PCs don't. It's much easier and cheaper do develop low-level games for PCs than for consoles. For example, I spent all this month playing new freeware adventure games, which were released this month only. That's a month worth of gaming for free. Show me a place where I can easily download a bunch of freeware for a console, and show me a way to install it easily. Independent gaming will always be another strong point of PCs, and there are people who like these games.

As a result, consoles and PCs will coexist in the future. PCs would catter to certain games and certain audience, and consoles to others. It's not my place to comment on the quality of the different gaming genres, but my personal preference would lie with the PCs.

Sure PC gaming is dying...

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC it was supposed to die when the original Playstation was released, or was it the PS2?

Here are some reasons why there will be demand for PC games in the near future:

- PC offers best performance and features. Thus cutting edge FPS games from ID and Epic will be always made for PC first. Current Xbox has Geforce 3.5 class graphics and the Xbox2 won't be released for a couple of years.

- TV resolution is way too small for more complex games like strategy games and simulators. Widespread usage of HDTV is years away, and by that time gamers will be accustomed to the

my future prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I see in the future that the tv, dvd, entertainment system, theater sound, and computer will all be intrigated into one unit. THis of course means that game consule will disapear. But the challenge is that I dont see that in the near future, we have to go 20 years down the line for that at least to see this become a standard.

Future Mav V. PC arguments

[the_2nd_coming]

person 1: Macs suck because they have no games!!! HA HA HA

PERSON 2: ummmm...the PC does not have any either....whats your point?

Simple Economics

[de_boer_man]

It's simple really. Both will be around as long as there are people shelling out enough cash for the games. When the PC game market becomes unprofitable, then and only then will it die.

Consumers have the power. If they continue to buy PC games, game developers will continue to put the money into developing better games for PC platforms.

never heard?

[mixtape5]

I have never heard there are good FPS for consoles

one word will do... Halo

Re:never heard?

[Guardian of Terra]

Is it really hardcore FPS? Then OK, i was wrong. Is it multiplayer, by the way? Multiplayer FPS's make hugely different sense. Consoles will soon have starcraft:ghost which is FPS too, but it's not like PC FPS...

Re:never heard?

[Anonymous Coward]

halo is the worst piece of shit excuse for an fps that i have ever had the misfortune to play. its crap absolute crap.

Re:never heard?

[bliSSter138]

Halo = only a shadow of what it could have been. See the original movie promos from Macworld, etc. The Halo dev team destroyed that game by moving it to FPS. Now it's just another shooter, and via gamepad, it's super weak.

Halo PC = just another shooter, and a poor one at that. It ran so poorly on my PC that I returned it to MS' for their 30-day $$-back guarantee.

Re:never heard?

[irix]

All you need to figure out how good Halo is is to look at how it did on the PC: mediocre. Halo is a second-rate FPS in the PC world.

The only reason Halo got impressive sales and press coverage is beacuse it was *the* launch title on the XBox, and if you wanted an FPS on the XBox at the time (heck, if you wanted a good game in general) it was Halo or nothing.

In my opinion consoles remain a secondary platform for FPS and RTS games. Until I see a seminal title for one of those genres as an exclusive on a console I can't see that changing.

Re:never heard?

[Slack3r78]

Except that myself and many other PC-oriented gamers found Halo to be vastly overrated. Granted, it's one of the best console FPS games out there, but coming from a background where there are a huge number of polished, solid FPS games, Halo really isn't all that special. In fact, I'd personally rate it second-tier at best.

Re:never heard?

[Minna Kirai]

Is it really hardcore FPS?

Not really. The best parts of Halo are actually the vehicles. It's better as a driving game than shooting.

Consoles will soon have starcraft:ghost which is FPS too,

No, Starcraft:Ghost is third person. Tomb Raider in space!

Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[G4from128k]

Its interesting that the price of a new console (PS2, XBox, etc.) is less than the price of a highest-end graphics card for a PC. Given that most people have old PCs, buying a console is the cheapest way to get into gaming. Add to that the comfort of a couch and big-screen TV vs. a desktop, I can see why many go for consoles.

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[Beatbyte]

how much is the big screen tv though?

more than not, people don't have big screen (50" and more) tv's. but if they do have a monitor for their computer, all it takes is a $100 video card from wal mart and they're good.

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[Lonewolf666]

Of course, you only need the highest-end graphics card if you want your game to run at maximum resolution.
A TV screen does, at best, give you the equivalent of 800x600 pixels. A PC can usually do this with a medium-range graphics card.

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[iainl]

What does a 50" or more TV have to do with anything? I don't know a single person with a monitor larger than their largest television.

The guy with the fancy Apple CinemaView LCD job has a 43" Plasma in the living room, and everyone else has 17" monitors vs. 28" or 32" 16x9 CRT televisions.

And if you can point me to a 60 graphics card capable of making FarCry playable I'd be most grateful.

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[stephenisu]

Well, what about the fact that my 50" tv was cheaper than my 21" LCD monitor?

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[fikx]

Speaking of which, where's the PlayStation2 PCI or AGP card?
Actually, I'd rather see console companies capture the PC market that way then try and add PC features to a console, but that's just me ...

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[*weasel]

Not to mention being able to rent games, return games with less hassle, not having to worry about drivers, directx, minimum system requirements, etc, etc.

PC gaming is and will remain an enthusiasts market. Console gaming is specifically designed to hit the consumer market. It will never be as high-end as PC gaming can be (resolutions, interface, polygons, mod-scenes, etc) - but it just doesn't need to be.

Most consumers play on consoles because its faster, cheaper, easier, and more convenient.

Most enthusiasts will never drop PC gaming because it will always be gaming on the bleeding edge.

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[Anonymous Coward]

But what resolution will you get on that big screen TV? Chances are, you're getting NTSC-quality video, which is even worse than 640x480.

Currently, on a PC, you can get much higher resolutions.

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[Bendebecker]

In the end it will be a moot point. If you haven't been paying attention to these consoles they are quickly becoming more and more like PCs anyway. In the end, you won't be able to tell the difference between the two.

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an excellent point. Though if you want to be "legal", as in paying for the games, you'll end up paying a lot of money.

I, on the otherhand will spend the $$ for a nice video card. I end up saving money in games since I pirate most of them. I know it's not right, but I'm just saying...

Re:Price of console vs. price of graphics card

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because consoles are sold with loss and the real money comes from the games which are in some cases up to twice as expensive as pc games.

It's simple, really

[Perdition]

I have played PC games before, although I am absolutely not a "power gamer" by any measure. The problems I saw were ones of investment, maintenance, and learning curve.
For instance, I remember loading a relatively simple game on what was once considered an OK laptop. I came to find out that in order to truly have the game running at anything near a fun speed, I had to add RAM, and quite a bit of it. Now the game no longer costed the original $25, but potentially hundreds more. I didn't like it that much. Plus, most PC games I have seen install scads of undesirable adware, spyware, etc. (I'm sure that things have improved on this front, however), and the unending act of cleaning up menus and doing uninstalls of old games I no longer enjoyed (if the uninstalls went smoothly, which often they did not), just got tiresome.
Another, much more minor gripe: keyboard/mouse/joystick setup. I admired some PC games for their flexibility with all the added buttons that a keyboard brings, but having a dozen keyboard overlays and remembering what alt-shift-A does from one game to another seems a bit much to me.
Once again, if you're a PC demigod with a passionately deep understanding for how to clear up these problems, you probably just think I'm dull-witted. However, I'd rather keep my PC as a productivity tool, and buy the occasional console instead of installing card upon card (among other bits that others could more effectively list here) to play similar (if superior) games. As consoles more successfully go online and increase their power and playability, the role of the PC as gaming machine seems more and more to be that of hard-core hobbyists, and not just people who want to play games.

Re:It's simple, really

[Perdition]

I used the word "costed". Never, EVER post before the coffee is done. I weep in shame.

Drives PC Hardware Sales

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

The sale of PC hardware is driven a lot by video games... what other reason would I have to upgrade from a 2.4ghz p4 with Geforce4 except to play Doom III with all the snazzy new effects enabled, for example? The next gen consoles might have cutting edge specs now, but so did the Xbox when it came out. Now it's 700mhz processor and graphics are pretty dated compared to the state of the art.

I think if video game publishers ease off of the PC platform, we will see money from Nvidia, ATI, and Intel that will support cutting edge video gaming on the PC.

Another point...

[yoshi_mon]

"...or will the ubiquitous need and superior user input of the PC keep it as a viable game platform?"

While with modern consoles having USB ports they could add a keyboard/mouse, the most obvious missing input devices missing, the major point about consoles is really not that. Rather it's all about the video.

Console video is pretty much all about TVs. And while TVs have become far better than those in the past, they still arn't designed to the level of computer monitors.

Get a copy of FarCry and bump up the video modes, on a suitable computer, from it's lowest resolution to it's highest. The change is dramatic. And the best part is that if you can't see it, or any modern game, at a resolution that pleases you that display is only a new video card away.

And while I suppose there is something to be said about playing on a bigscreen TV, any computer gamer worth their salt will know how to hook up their latest video card's TV out and play it like that if they so desire. However I'm betting that most would rather have 1600x1280 at 32bits with their 5.1 sound card pumping out the frags from their desk rather than trying to mess around with anything else.

I truely have no real clue why these moronic pundets keep hypeing the death of PC gaming by the hands of consoles. Over time I think we have a tendency to keep all the games we can. Cards, chess, go, board games, and all forms of sports are still being played and show no signs of dying. Console games will be around but saying that PC games are going away or will even be dimished is silly at best.

Convergance

[silverhalide]

If it isn't already apparent, consoles are already customized PCs. The two platforms will continue to converge. PS2's have hard drives. Xboxes do as well. Both have a form of USB which allows keyboards, they have network adapters... Hell they have available VGA outputs. It's kind of like racing your pickup truck, which can also be used for other tasks, against a dedicated race car. Just doesn't make sense anymore. Not to mention the price/performane ratio seems to be higher for consoles than a comparable PC setup.

No console games for me

[Omnifarious]

For some bizarre reason, some group of people thought this was flamebait. Perhaps they find the concept of someone not owning a TV too much for them or something.

I don't even have a TV to connect a console up to, and haven't had one in years. The idea of buying a piece of hardware just to play games on is mildly offensive to me. But the high levels of DRM (note, that I have purchased every single game I've played in the past 5 years) on them is extremely offensive to me.

So, no console games for me. If they can't make them for a PC (and preferably Linux) then, as far as I'm concerned, they don't exist.

The true X Box PC

[Ciacimus Dali]

people have commented that the question of which will become dominant rests on what types of games are played (sports games in consoles, rts in PCs) or some other factors. These reasons rest upon the fact that certain games are simply more comfortable to play in a console than a pc or vice-versa so the real issue here is when will the PC be comfortable to use for sports games/fighting games and other games that have always been associated with the console. The issue here is simply a technological one which PCs (being the inherently adaptable, configurable, and fast machines they are) can overcome in time. PCs are inevitably going to be the center piece of all electronics in the house as the Internet slowly becomes integrated in everything from interactive television to my fridge. Since PCs aren't going away, are only getting faster and have the ability to change, it seems to me that people will eventually demand that PCs become more "user-friendly" (for the console people) than it has been so as to eliminate the need for so much machinery in one's house. Better support for joysticks/controllers through changes in hardware (multiple joysticks, fast response, similar designs to current console controllers - which partly exists today), better promotion of the PC as a console alternative, and the ability to play games on a PC with minimal clickling or even no clicking, simply power up the PC and play a game (could require changes in BIOSes or a game aware OS, or an extension of Windows, that loads games automatically and plays with little overhead). In otherwords, when PCs through hardware and software modifications, can emulate the ease and speed of use of consoles - as well as increasing support and variety of controllers/joysticks - PCs might become the only way to go - think X-Box that can run Office and AutoCad without blinking an eye. Sorry for the long-winded post.

Re:Two words: DORK party

[Anonymous Coward]

...aafadfadfadfdads

My opinion has changed over the years

[theLOUDroom]

When I was in grade school, I used to think that PC gaming was vastly superior to console gaming. Better graphics, more buttons, etc.

Now that I'm an adult, the only games I play are on consoles.

What changed?
I went from windows to linux.
I don't have time to troubleshoot my 3d drivers, soundcard, etc.
Generally, when I want to play a game, I just want to relax.

IMO, the quality of console gaming has increased immensely.
With games like Metal Gear Solid out there, I just don't feel like I'm missing anything.

Couple that with something that "just works" and I'm sold.

Re:My opinion has changed over the years

[Explodo]

I hate to inform you of the curren state of affairs, but PC games on XP just work. I stay on Windows for games. Switching to Linux is not something a PC gamer does.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

ATI and Nvidia's fault

[superpulpsicle]

Ok the heart of PC gaming is 80-90% correlated with graphics card and its problems.

I have had top ranked cards from both of these companies. I'll tell you right now... if you game hardcore.... open case and giant fans still doesn't cut it. The driver problems just never ever stop. Look at rage3d forum, it's ridiculous.

If the API is so incompatible with this and that, they should just wait. Wait a long ass time until they can get a solid product out the door. I have returned my new ATI Radeon 9800 Pro in 3 months. My previous Geforce4 card overheated on a weekly basis. I am not alone in this arena.

Why not buy Macs then?

[Krioni]

I don't think consoles will ever truly beat out PCs for gaming. Die-hard anti-Mac zealots will see to that. Rob Enderle and Paul Thurrott will explain how conoles are "not expandable enough" and they don't come in "Ferrari red" and you can't have an 3l33t b0cks that is better than everyone else. Everyone has the same hardware, so there is no geek-power posturing.

If PCs were no longer needed for gaming, these guys would lose their best _real_ argument against Macs. So, just wait for a slew or articles explaining why you should not buy consoles.
-----

Superior user input on the PC?

[Zetta Matrix]

Don't give your computer too much credit, now.

It's more about fitness for a particular purpose. Console controllers are very good for certain kinds of games - platformers, sports games, shooters, etc. I agree that if your universe only consists of FPS, then I think the mouse and keyboard will beat a console's controller (imo). Computers are also well suited for strategy games that involve clicking on units such (both real-time and turn-based).

There's a reason that strategy flourishes on PC and platformers and shooters flourish on consoles.

Re:Superior user input on the PC?

[biisonbrenta]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! What are you on buddy? Lets face it, using your computer for games will always be better!! NO MATTER WHAT!! got it?

Prediction

[Progman3K]

The moment Linux becomes a game platform that is as supported as Windows, console sales will plunge.

Re:Prediction

[The Spie]

>>The moment Linux becomes a game platform that is as supported as Windows, console sales will plunge.

Yet another prediction that will never come to fruition. Many important things will have to change in order for there to be that level of support. I won't even get into the chicken/egg paradox of "no one's doing games for Linux because they won't sell, but no one's buying games for Linux because they're not available". Let's just say that there were Linux games available. What hurdles have to be overcome?

1) Native DirectX support in Linux. No WINE, no emulation, no anything. Native execution of DirectX code. If you want the game to play as it was written, that has to be there. It's doable, but it'll make Samba look like a walk in the park. And the FOSS community isn't willing to put in that level of effort, especially considering that DirectX is a moving target and keeping up with it will be as difficult as getting the work done in the first place.

2) Video driver support. ATi won't do it anymore, and the level of complaining that goes on concerning NVidia's binary-only drivers must turn them off from trying to cooperate with the FOSS community. Too many people take the attitude of "If we let NVidia get away with it...", draw a line in the political sand, and don't realize how much that cripples gaming on Linux, which even the zealots admit is a key to making headway in the desktop war.

3) A change in attitude among Linux developers. There are too many programmers out there who believe that the only suitable environment for a computer is an office and the only suitable tasks for a computer are office or network-oriented. The "if you want to game electronically, get a console" attitude is infectious and plays to the native elitism of Linux in general.

4) The "you can always dual boot" attitude. This hooks into #3. Every time someone says that, it's a telling sign that they don't want Linux to be a general-purpose operating system, thus condemning it to a niche.

So, in other words, it could happen, but unless some major changes take place in the community, it won't.

Re:Prediction

[Progman3K]

>> No WINE

What's wrong with Wine? I use it.

I like having the Windows virus contained right in that one spot.

And anyway, look at Id, they're able to make just about ALL their games run great on Linux, That's testimony to what can be done, and what we can expect when people embrace Linux more.

The MARKET will decide the issue.

>>Too many people take the attitude of "If we let NVidia get away with it..."

I don't know if NVidia realize what an incredible oportunity is before them; They could pick up the entire Linux market if they just completely open-sourced their drivers.

People would flock to that solution and buy their hardware because of it.

It doesn't prevent them from writing Windows drivers either, but come on, is that their real business model anyway? Writing software or selling hardware?

>>The "if you want to game electronically, get a console" attitude is infectious and plays to the native elitism of Linux in general.

Remember the first really cool unix workstations? They had crazy risc processors and the ability to generate and draw 3D objects in real-time.

Simulation has always been a core engineering concern. 3D Games are just an extension of that.

>>The "you can always dual boot" attitude.

I DON'T advise going this route: a Windows machine on any network where other Windows machines can reach it is a security problem.

Dual-booting to Windows REALLY wouldn't work for the typical home setup; a lot of those computers run Windows and are connected directly to the Internet, so the minute you boot Windows in a situation like that, you're wide open to the first connection requests and exploits on those 'unclosable' Windows service ports.

That's a sure-fire infection if you haven't patched recently, and let's face it; you CAN'T because Microsoft refuses to close the exploits.

Give me Linux: runs for months wihout having to restart and comes up with all ports CLOSED by default.

So in closing, I'm predicting more and more migrations away from Windows to Linux.

I just think that it's really every bit as good. And then some.

Consoles are winning...

[laird]

I think that the consoles are winning. While PC gaming will never die out (a high-end PC will outperform an affordable console, and it's natural for people who already own a PC to play games on it), there are a number of reasons that the videogame market is shifting more and more towards consoles, mainly because of the predicability of the console environment:

- Support costs: Since consoles are extremely predictable, the customer support costs for making a game work are much lower than on a general purpose PC. If you sell a game for $40, you might make $20 after cost of distribution, and a half hour phone call to get video drivers updated means that you've lost money selling that copy of the game. So if I sell the same number of units on a PC and console, the console games will cost me much less to sell.
- Customer satisfaction: It's easier to play on consoles -- put a disk in and turn the console on. PC's require installation, keyboards aren't as nice to use as joysticks, etc.
- Piracy: Piracy is rare in the console world, and common in the PC world. This effectively shrinks the PC gamer market, making it less attractive to sell games.
- Development costs: it's much easier developing software that runs reliably on a console than all PC's. Sure, the PS2 development tools are weird, but you don't have to worry about testing on a wide range of CPU's, RAM, video cards, etc.
- Not a moving target: In PC game development, one of the hardest tasks is to figure out what a PC will be like at that point in the future where your game will ship, and to engineer for that point. If you guess too high, your game won't run on mainstream PC's. If you guess too low, your game will suck compared to someone else. Sure, there are new generations of consoles, but that's only every five years or so, and always screws up the game market until things stabilize. The PC market is always in the turmoil of change.
- Competition: somewhat counter-intuitively, since the PC market is completely open, there are a near infinite number of games written. This makes it very hard to get your game produced, distributed, and marketed. The last time I saw the numbers, it was around 1 in 100 games that were written got distributed, and 1 in 100 games that were distributed that were profitable. The console market is more controlled, so you don't have to compete against a flood of random programs to get noticed.

So while the PC game market will always be around, for lots of good reasons, it'll become (IMO) more and more games in a couple of niches:
- Gamer geek games that appeal to the high-end gamers willing to pay $3K for a machine to run better than a $200 console.
- Weird games that can't get distributed on the consoles. Some of these will be very cool, and get ported to consoles to make the real money.
- Ports of the 'hit' console games, to make a little money. I think that companies will "port to the PC" for the same reasons that they "port to the Mac" -- if it's a hit game, you can make some money selling into smaller markets.

Re:Consoles are winning...

[tepples]

Weird games that can't get distributed on the consoles. Some of these will be very cool, and get ported to consoles to make the real money.

I'd like to emphasize that this is exactly the issue that the "c0ns0lez are dyingz0rz" people neglect.

News of PC Gaming Death...

[SupaZeph]

much like news of BSD's death, has been greatly exaggerated...

However, if it were true this time, I for one would welcome our online console gaming overlords =P

OK, I promise, no more slashdot memes.

No Killer PC Apps Lately

[pezpunk]

nahhhh. it's simple. there just haven't been any world-shaking titles for PC lately. When the next Starcraft or The Sims or Doom comes out, you'll see articles again speculating about the death of the console.

just wait till World of Warcraft and Doom 3 come out.

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[mosschops]

What's this about no killer games recently?

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[pezpunk]

what, yet more first person shooters? they're fine examples of the genre, sure, but nothing really outstanding.

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[Anonymous Coward]

And console games are always break-through games forging new genres? Even Halo was nothing new as far as PC owners were concerned. You're lucky to find anything truly new, but you can build on existing genres.

I expect you'll be dismissing Half-life 2 as yet another FPS too?

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[pezpunk]

you misunderstand me. i didn't say a game has to be genre-busting to be great. i just said those games are good, but not totally outstanding.

half life 2: we'll see. can't judge a game till it's out.

but the consoles recently had the whole GTA3 thing, which was pretty revolutionary. also they're just now forraying into the mmorpg market. plus KOTOR was a truly outstanding RPG, far better than anything that's been released for the PC in the last two or three years. these are games that make a big difference in what sort of mahine people buy. Far Cry is not. Doom 3 might be, and World of Warcraft might be, depending on how they turn out, even though they're not groundbreaking in terms of originality of gameplay.

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[bigman2003]

Well, the next Starcraft will be a console game.

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[Rallion]

Yeah, the only thing better than KotOR was...well...the PC version of KOtoR. At release time, anyway--now they've evened out thanks to some patches for the XBox version.

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[Garak]

Yikes! Starcraft on a console, those kind of games ususally suck on a console. Thats were the PC rocks. You have dedicated buttons for each unit, way faster than naviagting menus. Then there is the resultion problems. In games like starcraft the more you can see at one time the better. No matter which way you look at it a mouse is far more accurret than a stick for placing buildings.

Anyway... There are two types of gamers, those who just like game play and are happy playing anything from the old nes and snes to the latest xbox games. And then there are people like me who like games that are fast and simulate reality and let me do things I can't do in the real world.(Like going around hunting people in a FPS or Stealing cars and running down police in GTA)

The game play people are happy with the current tech and like consoles because they are simple.

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[Anonymous Coward]

The new starcraft isn't even a RTS, its an FPS (which sucks without a mouse.) That combined witht he fact that even the blizzard addicts seem not too interested will probably mean the failure of this game. Personally, though, I abandoned blizzard after the two years for a patch in diablo 2 debackle. It remains to be seen if WoW will truly be a sucess. The game might look great but the monthly subscription price may kill off its core audience leaving only the in-crowd who will abandon it the moment something better comes out.

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[Windowser]

In fact, this will happen when Duke Nukem Forever comes out ;)

Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately

[vizek]

I am too a Starcraft fanatic. But if you're talking about VERY good games I can point you to 2 of them. And I don't play very much, work and family eats most my time. The 2 games that I played recently are: Call of Duty (FPS) - excellent and Rise of Nations (RTS) - pretty good, I only started playing it about 2 weeks ago. I know Call Of duty is available on consoles, but I don't care. I don't have to own 2-3 consoles to get the games I want. I'll just get whatever is released for PC and the selection is good enough for me.

Consoles will win out

[Anita Coney]

The main problem with PC gaming is too much diversity.

PCs sold today come with either those crappy integrated graphics or advanced GPUs from ATi and nVidia. And even those with good graphics systems have would have a wide varieties of drivers installed, which means that some features are enabled and some are not.

Also, most PCs sold do not come with controllers and/or joysticks. And if the user buys such devices, there are numerous brands to consider.

There are also various sound cards, processors, etc., each with different features that gaming authors may or may not be able to take advantage of.

If you want to sell games for the PC, and you if you want to sell a lot of them, you're essentially forced to aim for the lowest common denominator. Only a handful of gaming publishers can sell high quality games without pandering to crappy computers.

And lets face it; there are essentially only two gaming engines for the PC, id's Quake and Epic's Unreal. When Carmack quits to devote himself fulltime to getting into space (which will happen after Doom3) that'll leave only one engine left. And let's face it, without Carmack, OpenGL will be dead on the PC too.

Re:Consoles will win out

[LarsWestergren]

And lets face it; there are essentially only two gaming engines for the PC, id's Quake and Epic's Unreal.

Yes, because we know the only games that exist are FPS games, right?

When my friends started playing console games (mainly Japanese RPGs), it was because these games cared more about plot, and gaming experience (just trying to make a FUN game). A lot of PC game developers, PC gaming magazines and PC players just seemed to care about frames per second, maximum polygons, shaders...

Re:Consoles will win out

[Anita Coney]

I did say "essentially." Sure there are other games for the PC, e.g., The Sims. But other than the Sims, can you think of non-FPS games that sell as well as Quake or Unreal based games?

Re:Consoles will win out

[necrognome]

Do you know anything about PC gaming?

Diablo.
Warcraft.
Railroad Tycoon.

WRT to 3D engines, perhaps you've heard of a company called Valve?

Re:Consoles will win out

[SFBwian]

Sure. The Age Of *, Diablo *, *craft *, Rollercoaster Tycoon *, GTA*. That's just on the PC.

* - insert your favorite sequel here

Of course, this also points out that many successful games are sequels of other proven successful games; and that you don't have to have a 3d engine to have a successful game, but just a good engine with good art and gameplay direction.

Also, in the realm of 3d engines, there are quite a few still out there, or will be coming out soon, for FPS style gameplay that although aren't as popular as the big two, can be just as powerful if used correctly. Of note: Serious Engine 1&2 (Serious Sam, with Alpha Black Zero, Nitro Family, and SS2 to come), Lithtech (NOLF, AvP), and Source (Half-Life 2, obviously).

I firmly believe that the next era or two of game engines will be a great equalizer for many games, based on the standardized technology in shaders and other APIs. We're increasingly hitting the boundaries between what baseline and top-of-the-line hardware is capable of producing, and the ability for artists to produce content to match in a timely and cost-efficient manner; the framework for a game engine to have seamless interoperability with more focused engines (sound, graphics, network, AI, file I/O, etc) is becoming easier to produce, and the shift of concentration from graphics to the other components will help bring about better games with the same graphics capability (a common ground, equal-opportunity sort of thing).

Ideally, in the future it won't matter what engines power your game, but rather what the game actually is. In the meantime, it's still a good time to be a gamer, there's a lot of quality out there. :)

Re:Consoles will win out

[RatBastard]

FPS games are not the best selling games. Not by a long shot. The best selling games for the PC are:
1: Myst
2: Rollercoaster Tycoon
3: The Sims (and the expansion packs)
4: MS Flight Simulator
5: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.
6: Riven: The Sequel to Myst
7: MS Age of Empires II: Age of Kings
8: Monopoly Game
9: Lego Island
10: Diablo

Not an FPS game in the bunch. Now, I love DOOM, Quake (1/2/3:A), etc... but I'm not most gamers.

Just semantics

[dougthonus]

Slap a keyboard and a mouse on an xbox and all of a sudden it's a pc with a low res monitor. So it's quite possible we could get consoles with keyboards and mice to simulate the accuracy of the pc. In the end, it can be the same hardware on both platforms and the games will just be created and ported to all systems. Eventually, you'll probably be able to play any 3rd party online games regardless of the system you have to connect with.

Re:Just semantics

[Warlock7]

Run it through a High-Definition TV and you solved the monitor issue.

Re:Just semantics

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought my 21" flat CRT for $120, and my Radeon 9800 for $250.

Find me a HDTV for under $400, and that will make sense. Until then I have no reason to move my gaming out of my desk area. Especially since a TV wonder can move all my TV and console gaming needs to the same area alot cheaper.

(Posted AC cause I can't register from work. damn firewall)

Re:Just semantics

[Warlock7]

You'll have to get one sometime soon, when the switchover finally happens.

Until then, you play on your 21" CRT and I'll be happy playing on my 60" Mitsu HD. To each their own, I guess.

The PC is here to stay.

[Lejade]

Sorry, but this article is just misinformed crap.

It implies that MMPs are the only type of games still being played on PC, which is dumb. Not only that, it also states that "their growth appears almost stagnant" which is, of course, completely false.

I'm a game developper working on MMPs.
I've been hearing about the demise of the PC as a gaming platform for *years*.
Every year brings its new fad : consoles, cell phones, set top boxes, PDAs, next-gen consoles, online consoles, you name it...

And you know what ?
The PC is still alive and kicking.

And you know why ?
Because as long as PCs are bought, some people will want to buy games to play on them, and some developpers will want to take advantage of a free platform.

A platform where they don't need to beg for development kits.
A platform where they don't have to pay a for the privilege of releasing a game.
A platform where they are free to develop whatever game they wish without going through the hoops of "concept approval" (going through the hoops of a publisher is bad enough).
A platform where their imagination isn't restricted by the DRM crap that console makers are going to shove down everybody's throat.

So maybe all the big action/sports/movie franchise will keep moving on consoles. And who cares really? It's all the same old, boring stuff anyway.
But I'm pretty sure you'll keep on seeing original, cool games appearing on the PC first. And it won't be just the MMP games...

Here's a couple of links to prove my point.

The day the PC as a gaming platform dies, is the day the PC dies.

Re:The PC is here to stay.

[Warlock7]

Unfortunately developers aren't driving the market, the consumers are. With the consoles becoming more and more powerful, they could effectively replace the PC as the home computing system alltogether in the future. More likely we will see a distibuted home computing network replace both in the future as both "platforms" become more and more similar.

The "An Analysis of MMOG Subscription Growth" that you linked to says nothing about the subscription rates of MMORPGs on consoles vs. PCs which I think would be a much more enlightening picture of the industry. This report doesn't show whether the PC versions of these titles are dropping off or stagnating compared to the console versions or not, which was what the article was inferring.

MS just announced their new, and free I think, SDK that will allow simple development for PC and the XBox console simultaneously, so it's kind of funny that you make your comparisson when they are making it easier for you to develop for both without the issues that you are talking about. Now, that's not saying that Nintendo and Sony will do the same, I realize they are difficult to develop for, but it sure sounds like MS is trying to make it easier for you game developers.

Re:The PC is here to stay.

[Lejade]

>Unfortunately developers aren't driving the market, the consumers are.

Absolutely. And as long as consumers buy PCs, developpers will make games for them.

>The "An Analysis of MMOG Subscription Growth" that you linked to [...]doesn't show whether the PC versions of these titles are dropping off or stagnating compared to the console versions or not, which was what the article was inferring.

Not exactly, no.
The article was comparing console games in general with PC, MMP games - which is silly. It also said that the number of player playing MMPs was stagnating. I posted this link in order to show how this statement is false. Nothing more, nothing less.

Personnally, as long as the PC market exists and grows, I couldn't care less how it fares relatively to the consoles market since I have no intention of developping on consoles anyway.
I don't mind if PCs grow 2% while consoles grow 20%. Good for them. Myself, I'd rather stay free on the PC. Even with a smaller market.

>MS just announced their new, and free I think, SDK that will allow simple development for PC and the XBox

Sorry but I have learned long ago not to trust MS.
My shop uses only cross platform APIs (OpenGL, SDL ,etc...).
No proprietary crap for me, thank you very much.

Re:The PC is here to stay.

[Warlock7]

"...as long as consumers buy PCs, developpers will make games for them."

I think that would make more sense if you said: ...as long as consumers buy games on PCs, developers will make games for them. Which is how the consumers drive the market to begin with.

You are right, that's what the article says, but you would get more out of that graph if you did compare the trend between PC sales vs the consoles. Also, the graph does show that the older titles are dropping away while new ones become popular, FFXI is a skyrocket, but it's in the minority. Aside from FFXI, Horizons and Ragnarok Online every other game in that graph has stagnated or is in decline. So, it doesn't support your postion exactly. 3 out of 20 are on the rise, now it could simply be that everybody is moving to those three, but it's not clear from the graph if that is the case. You'd actually have to crunch those numbers to make that determination. And it still doesn't address the PC vs. console question at all.

As the market for PC games declines the demand for games on the PC will decline as well, the companies won't be as profitable and they will fall if they don't move to the proprietary platforms that you dislike so much. That's just simple economics.

Re:The PC is here to stay.

[Lejade]

>Aside from FFXI, Horizons and Ragnarok Online every other game in that graph has stagnated or is in decline.

Nonono : that's not how you should look at it. What you're seeing only show that players are gaining/loosing interest in specific games.
Now, what you really should be looking at is that the aggregate number of MMP players is growing very fast.

>As the market for PC games declines

I'm sorry, but you still haven't explained how that would happen...

Re:The PC is here to stay.

[Warlock7]

I'm taking the concept of more people moving to consoles to the next step. I've made the assumption that PC gamers will move to the consoles which would essentially cause the market for PC games to shrink/decline. I realize that you don't agree with this assumption, but that was the idea behind the statement.

Like you said the graph does appear to show people drifting from game to game, but that's just another aspect of this. This whole concept would be a very interesting study to conduct, if you could effectively cover all of these aspects.

FFXI does appear to have annihilated all the other titles in the list. I have the feeling their success has a lot to do with the pre-existing fan base for that title too. Ten+ previous versions that are all very successful games. I am one of the adopters myself, on the PS2, which is nearly identical to the PC version from what I can tell. I'd like to see a version of this graph that has tracked through today too as that would be very telling.

If you interpolate from the graph the number of people leaving other games and the increase in subscribers to FFXI, I'd say that there has been an increase in MMORPG subscribers of about 200000 subscribers out of a total of about 2.5 million subscribers, which is only an 8% increase. That doesn't strike me as very fast. That's a healthy increase in players, but it all appears to be due to FFXI. I don't think that it is growing as fast as you do.

Thanks, by the way, I've really enjoyed this discussion.

XBox 2 is supposed to be more powerful than a PC

[Warlock7]

This will be the first time in history, if rumors and speculation about XBox2 are true, that a console is superior to a home computer. If this is true and they sell it for around $400 at launch we could very well see the demise of gaming on the home computer platform.

With the current peripherals that are available for the consoles, like keyboards and mice, the user experience is comparable to a home computer.

It's also much nicer to play in the living room on a large screen television rather than on a monitor at a desk.

It's ALL about the controls

[xylix]

I had actually been thinking about getting a PS II recently. Then I went to a friend's house last weekend and actually PLAYED a PS II for the first time ever. (Yeah, I live under a rock. Shoot me.) A few months back we played Unreal Tournament (PC) via the internet and I ran circles around him. We fired up Unreal Tournament 2003 (PS II)... and I got absolutely slaughtered!

I know it was my first time playing a FPS with a game pad but I can't imagine actually prefering that input over a keyboard and mouse for a FPS. After that experience I am having second thoughts about getting a console, and thinking about just building a good PC gaming system instead.

Playing the Lord of the Rings game was a better experience with the game pad ... but that isn't my kind of game anyway. Simpsons was another game where I didn't mind the game pad, and actually might prefer it after some practice.

But at the end of the day, I can easily get a game pad to work with a PC, if I prefer that input for some games, but AFAIK you can't use a mouse + keyboard with a console.

I agree with a poster above - it is all about what you play. With certain genres of games (FPS, RTS...) PC input is better.

Re:It's ALL about the controls

[greed]

Well, I know a number of PS2 games support USB mice/trackballs; hook up a plain old Logitech Trackman and it works right away.

Haven't played any that support keyboards for game controls; but a number let you use the keyboard for data entry, so it's just a matter of the vendor realizing that keyboard support is the right thing to do. (And not everything that works with a keyboard mentioned it on the box.)

Re:It's ALL about the controls

[Fjord]

I fully agree with this. I think a killing could be made in the console arena by having the right stick be a trackball instead. Trackballs are even better than mice for FPSs (once you are used to them), because you move your finger less distance and quicker than your hand, and you can spin-n-stop them for some really interesting maneuvers.

Hardware Issues

[maddogdelta]

One point I haven't seen made yet is about hardware issues. One of the problems with game development on a PC is what hardware is in use? I know that as a consumer, I can purchace the best hardware available, but that doesn't mean that the programs will be written to take advantage of it.

Case in point, remember 3DFX? Great hardware, great software interface, great linux support. Lousy longevity. They are gone, swallowed up by Nvidia. So all of the games that worked great on my voodoo 3 card now absolutely stink with an equivalently priced Nvidia card (maybe if I buy a newer card)

My point is not to bash nvidia, but to emphasize that the games that worked great with voodoo were specifically coded to take advantage of that card, and because of that, would almost have to make other cards look bad. If I had purchaced games that were coded for nvidia, then i would have seen the exact opposite effect.

Now what is the development team to do? Re code software so that every single video card is supported? Rotsa ruck. As soon as it goes gole, there will be 30 more cards that aren't in the package that will require the patch to be downloaded.

Contrast this to ANY console. Sure, I can purchase much better hardware for a PC, but every console developer knows exactly what hardware he/she is coding for, and doesn't have to waste 6 man-years coding for multiple cards. Everything works. Performance is squeezed out of those machines to the nth degree.

I don't think that this will mean either platform will 'die' but until video card developers come up with a 'consensus' set of api's that developers can code for, then it will always seem that the user will need a custom pc to for each game to get the best performance out of that particular title.

Re:Hardware Issues

[SFBwian]

Case in point, remember 3DFX? Great hardware, great software interface, great linux support. Lousy longevity. They are gone, swallowed up by Nvidia. So all of the games that worked great on my voodoo 3 card now absolutely stink with an equivalently priced Nvidia card (maybe if I buy a newer card)

My point is not to bash nvidia, but to emphasize that the games that worked great with voodoo were specifically coded to take advantage of that card, and because of that, would almost have to make other cards look bad. If I had purchaced games that were coded for nvidia, then i would have seen the exact opposite effect.

If nvidia had a special subset of OpenGL (like say, Glide), then perhaps someone would have taken advantage of it. However, they instead supported making hardware that conformed to open standards (that yes, change with times, with input from many manufacturers), and maximizing the hardware to work within those. 3DFX apparently had problems when you didn't use Glide, and their direction for next-generation hardware was completely trumped by the already-available T&L-capable offerings of nvidia and ATI.

A side note, a very popular game, Half-Life, works wonderfully with either a Voodoo3 or TNT2, and nvidia's offering also had support for 32 bit color (for games that actually supported it - HL seemed to fake it ;) )

Now what is the development team to do? Re code software so that every single video card is supported? Rotsa ruck. As soon as it goes gole, there will be 30 more cards that aren't in the package that will require the patch to be downloaded.

No, these days, vendors make backwards-compatible hardware, that has the capability of the old hardware as well as new functionality, at a usually-faster speed. In fact, they have unified drivers, that can let people upgrade or downgrade their hardware without un-/installing different software for that hardware. Also, they now usually rely on OpenGL or DirectX versions to handle what is possible with a graphics card, which means in many cases not having to tailor multiple graphics engines for graphics cards, and usually means locking out older hardware (not that that hardware would perform well in the first place). Bugs will always happen, and can be fixed. If a card doesn't support a feature of a standard correctly, it's the manufacturer's fault, and their drivers should be updated.

Contrast this to ANY console. Sure, I can purchase much better hardware for a PC, but every console developer knows exactly what hardware he/she is coding for, and doesn't have to waste 6 man-years coding for multiple cards. Everything works. Performance is squeezed out of those machines to the nth degree.

Yes, it is more efficient to only have a standard platform that never changes. That also means it never gets better/updated for 5 years.

I don't think that this will mean either platform will 'die' but until video card developers come up with a 'consensus' set of api's that developers can code for, then it will always seem that the user will need a custom pc to for each game to get the best performance out of that particular title.

You mean like OpenGL, or DirectX? Besides, you can never get the 'best performance' out of a game. We're still climbing the fps benchmarks for Quake3 at 500fps (which is completely rediculous). New hardware just performs better than old. You ought to be able to tell at a glance if Card A is going to be a phenomenally better performer than Card B these days (this isn't always the case, but just do a little research before you buy that GeForce4 MX just cause it has a '4' in the title), and the biggest difference impact of similar cards within the same pricerange is going to now be stability on your system.

How can anyone afford a gaming PC?

[wwwrun]

It astonishes me (as something of a non-gamer*) that the PC games market can survive. How can anything like enough people be prepared to fork out $1000 for the PC they need to play the latest games, compared to the market for a $100-$200 console? Especially given the games are roughly the same price. The spec you need to play recent games bears little resemblance to the kind of machine you need for almost any other task, so it must be less and less the case that PC gamers are making use of PCs they'd own anyway.

I understand the modding scene is fantastic, but can anyone offer an insight into how PC games find a market worth developing for?

(*)I take it nethack doesn't count?

Re:How can anyone afford a gaming PC?

[aceh0]

it's a hobby for people albeit an expensive hobby. people dont casually throw down a grand to play every new game. i have a pretty fast system and i've probably only spent 400$ or so on it in the last 18 months and that included a cpu/motherboard/memory and graphics upgrade

Re:How can anyone afford a gaming PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couple of reasons:

1.) Free games. Via Direct Connect you can get every single game cheap.

2.) 1000$ gets you a GREAT PC. You can get a decent gaming box for far less.

3.) Even if you do buy some games, they are cheaper than console games. Consoles are like inkjet printers. They sell you the base unit cheap, then shaft you on further purchases once you are locked in.

Re:How can anyone afford a gaming PC?

[deathcloset]

Would you rather hike or would you rather go four-wheeling?

Both get you outdoors, but the experience and price is decidedly different.

Consoles are simple and easy: if that is your kind of fun then great -they are also much cheaper

PCs are complicated and tricky, but thier ever-increasing power and flexibility gives you options that simply don't and can't exist on any current consoles.

The interesting thing is this: those who prefer consoles (in my experience) tend to have other real-world ways of having fun. for example, these console buffs tend to have nice cars, boats, motorcycles; other things they enjoy and drop 1000s on.

die-hard PC gamers tend to have really nice computers.

Best of Both Worlds!

[Anonymous Coward]

Emulated (old) console games on a computer! :P

Don't Worry

[llZENll]

There will always be PC games as long as there is a PC, the PC will ALWAYS be the fastest and have the latest technology. How can a consol that is a snapshot of the PC world every 5 years compare?

If anything consols will make the PC game experience better for us nerds, because now all the most generic and over hyped lamo games will be on consol, and the awesome AOE, CS, UT, games will continue on the PC with less competition.

There goes the only reason for upgrading PCs

[Secrity]

The only applications that are driving the insane workstation/personal computer processor and display speeds are PC games. If games go away on PCs then there will be very little incentive for anybody to upgrade to faster CPUs and displays. The server market is totally different, the server market needs processing power, but it doesn't need fast displays.

Why not just build a console...

[SteakandcheeseUm]

Why not just build a console with a keyboard and mouse, setup for massively multiplayer gaming only? ...and then lock it into a shifty subscription based hardware upgrade blood-line that costs enormous sums of money.

Lifecycles ALWAYS cause this

[Chitlenz]

The problem for consoles is they are in a fixed hardware configuration for a LONG period of time. For instance, the PS2 is now creeping into year 3 with no appreciable quality changes ...

There seems to be a turning point every few years where the market leans back to making really REALLY good pc games over console.

With Doom3, UT2k4, World of Warcraft, Everquest2, Half Life 2, etc. all coming out over the next few months for PC, its set to be another rebound year where the PC leaps ahead of consoles in technology and quality by enough of a margin to keep the cycle going.

Technology doesn't stop evolving to wait for Sony(MS, Nintendo)'s Next Big Thing that they can mass produce cheaply.

-chitlenz

Re:Lifecycles ALWAYS cause this

[perlchild]

the console long lifecycles actually attract game developers, less support headaches.

You pays you money and you make you choices...

Good Riddance

[ocie]

I'm not much of a gamer, but I bought a game, let's just call it Tron 2.0 and tried to play on my laptop. It didn't work, and tech support said I needed a specific video card, even though this wasn't on the package. The store, let's just call them Fry's, wouldn't give a refund, only store credit.

Anyway, the point of this rant is that with a console, you know it will be compatible when you buy it. You plug in the cartrage/CD, or dial up your online service and _it_just_works_. That used to be true for PC games as well, but it looks like not anymore.

Why I Chose My PS2

[Rob Riggs]

...or how I learned to stop worrying and love Linux.

I don't run Windows at home; I run Linux. I own quite a few native Linux game titles (Civ III, Quake III, Railroad Tycoon, among others) but once Loki went out of business, I decided that Linux would not be a target platform for games for a long time -- too long for me to wait it out. All of my Linux-using friends had broken down and bought consoles (most of them PS2s). I realized that they were doing the right thing and I followed suit.

I know about TransGaming, but I think that what they are doing sends the wrong message to the game publishers, so it's a personal choice of mine not to use their product.

I think I prefer games on the PC, and I'll buy more Linux games when game publishers start supporting my platform of choice. But until then, I'm happy with my PS2.

PC gaming will wither...

[Kjella]

...when there's an HDTV console, HDTV games and HDTVs are reasonably common. The sole reason I don't like consoles is their crappy interlaced resolution. Real "plug&play" is nice, no fiddling with setup.

OTOH, consoles as I think of them are withering too. They are becoming more and more like like a standardized PC in drag. They sound more and more like something you have to patch and upgrade and accessorize and so on. I suspect the "live" holes will only make that more so.

The introduction of a "Media Center" into all that doesn't make it easier either. Do you want that separate (TiVo, Replay), on PC (e.g. Windows Media Center, MystTV), on console (which one was that?) or will there be a "convergence" device that's really everything? Or will the digital sat/cable boxes take this marked?

And will it really be convienient if it's all the same box? Will they all work independently, what's the point then? Or will there be an argument whenever your siblings/roommate/SO/kids/whatever want to use some other functionality?

I think eventually There'll be someone that gets it right - one central server, then "terminals" (As in computer terminal, game terminal, PVR terminal and so on). And I think that company will be Apple. The day they design an iCenter or whatever, that's the day it all comes together.

At least, I don't see anyone else really able to pull it off. The rest, maybe a device that's good at one of them, with some tacky add-ons. Would that be a PC? Not really. Would that be a console? Not really. Expect more "Jack of all trades, master of none" in the time to come...

Kjella

A matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

A specific solution to a gamming need will only work until a general (and lowercost) solution comes along. Look at the cell phone/PDA configuration - would anyone go back to carrying both devices? But everyone did - once upon a time.

My point is, given enough PC power and a low enough price point, PCs will have their day again.

Why I love my PS2

[A55M0NKEY]

• The games come on DVDs. PC games still come on CDs because they are still afraid of alienating the vanishingly small segment of the population that still has no DVD player on their computer. ( So far only games really utilize the huge amount of space available on a DVD so for non gamers, DVD is not really a neccessity, but neither is it a neccessity for PC gamers since no games for PC that I know of require it )
• The PS2 costs about as much as the graphics card I would have to buy to get comperable performance out of my PC
• My TV screen is bigger than my computer screen. For theatrical games, 27 inches is nice, even if the resolution sucks. Resolution isn't as important as size unless there is alot of text and menus. Inability to display text forces game designers to largely eschew them which lets you get more 'into' the game.
• I can play a game while someone else uses the computer or vice versa. Why get that video card for the same price as a game system when you'd just have to share?
• Console games are Bugfree (TM). They are. I have maybe found 1 or 2 MINOR bugs in console games over the years. Every third PC game I buy must be returned to WAL*MART because it won't install correctly on my computer.
• The controllers are the best designed ever.
• 
  
  • 
    

    The only advantage to the PC as a gaming platform is for games like Sim City where lotsa menus are unavoidable and there is so much detail that the resolution of a computer monitor is NECCESARY. Also the raw crunching power of a relatively up to date computer is needed for simulation style games.
    
    

    Fsck microsoft. They are fixing to 'merge' the PC with the console. This will make the console prone to bugs and make the PC into a black box that I can't do what I want on. "Sorry I can't play Mario Bros because I caught a virus from an email and now I have to reformat my game system. My WinBox OS CD is scratched so I have to buy another one because their damn DRM didn't let me make a backup copy." Yeah right.

Re:Why I love my PS2

[EulerX07]

The PS2 costs about as much as the graphics card I would have to buy to get comperable performance out of my PC

That's a bit of an exageration, altough a common one. In canada, the base PS2 (not the online pack) is 200$. For less than that price I can get a GeForceFX 5600 or a Radeon 9600 pro based card that will totally wipe the floor with the PS2 as far as frame rate/eye candy/resolution goes. Actually I can even get a TNT2 for 19$, and it might have a chance of beating the PS2 at the same resolution that the PS2 operates in.

Not that your point is invalid, a PS2 is the cheapest alternative. The quoted statement was just a bit much. The reasons the top PC card cost so much is that they're built to run games with WAY more details than PS2 games at 1600X1200 with 60+ frames per second.

Re:Why I love my PS2

[arkham6]

I'm sorry, but I have to add in my two cents. The big problem I have with console gaming is that they are too dumbed down and simplistic to keep me entertained for more than a few hours. PC gaming generaly are far more complex and interesting, and are much more varied. You will never see games like Hearts of Iron (WWII strat game), or Falcon 4.0 (f-16 simulator) on a x-box.

And speaking of Falcon, you will never see a serious mod community on console games. The mod community for F4 has created some excelent mods and changes to the game that keep this old 6 year old title fresh and still playable.

Finaly, it is annoying to play a FPS with a gamepad. Give me a mouse for aiming any day.

Re:Why I love my PS2

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

Most of your reasons for loving the PS2 (versus the PC) are either false or moot. DVD's? While it is true that most PC games must come on 2 or 3 CD's, it's only a minor annoyance when you realize that, after installation, you will often only need one of them, or perhaps none at all! Resolution not important? You bet it is, and, in fact, it becomes *more* important on larger screens. A game running at 640x480 will look horrible on a large TV, but significantly less so on a smaller monitor. Console games bug-free? While I must admit that they have *less* bugs than computer games, bugs still do exist; in fact, this is an *advantage* for PCs because you cannot download patches on to consoles to fix them. Controllers? A good keyboard and mouse can do more than even the most well-designed one. While I'm at it, I might as well counter with "Why I Love My PC:" -The games are much more intelligent. Because the dev's aren't constrained by the controller limitations of a console platform, you can design games with dozens of hotkeys, versus maybe 10 buttons (at most) on a console controller. Also, PC game dev's doesn't have to worry about catering to the mainly teenage console crowd. -The games look better! There are fewer hardware limitations on PC's. -The controls are much better for the majority of game types out there. A joystick cannot match the sheer speed and control that a mouse provides, and keys are much easier on the fingers than console joysticks/controllers (remember how your hand hurt after playing Halo on the Xbox for too long?) Console controllers lend themselves more towards games in which lots of movement isn't required, such as fighting games. -Freeware/shareware games. You have to pay for every game you use on a console, but PC gamers can download NetHack (and many others) for free! -Emulation! No further explanation needed. -Innovation. How many small startup companies do you see making games for consoles? However, on the PC you get sleeper hits like Combat Mission that come from heretofore unknown game development groups. This allows for much more innovative games on the PC, while console game dev's are busy making another Final Fantasy or Mortal Kombat clone. -Versatility. PC's can do much more than just gaming. Well, that's my counter-argument, and I'm sticking to it.

Re:Why I love my PS2

[Contact]

Taking the points roughly in order...

The games come on DVDs. PC games still come on CDs because they are still afraid of alienating the vanishingly small segment of the population that still has no DVD player on their computer. ( So far only games really utilize the huge amount of space available on a DVD so for non gamers, DVD is not really a neccessity, but neither is it a neccessity for PC gamers since no games for PC that I know of require it )

Yep, that's a plus. However, we're (finally) starting to see some games (UT 2004, Far Cry) available on DVD.

On the other hand, PC games can usually be installed to the hard drive, and load up in a few seconds - you only need to use the CDs once (barring dumb copy protection, which can invariably be NoCDd into oblivion).

The PS2 costs about as much as the graphics card I would have to buy to get comperable performance out of my PC

Hmm... not really. You can pick up a GF4 series card for drastically less than a PS2, and GTA3 on that card is way, way better than the PS2 version. I'm just being picky, though, consoles are far better value for money - point conceded.

My TV screen is bigger than my computer screen. For theatrical games, 27 inches is nice, even if the resolution sucks. Resolution isn't as important as size unless there is alot of text and menus. Inability to display text forces game designers to largely eschew them which lets you get more 'into' the game.

True to an extent, although I find it hard to consider quality of graphics a negative point. :) Plus, I sit about two feet from my 19 inch screen - to get the same viewing angle on your 27 inch television, you'd need to be three feet away, and you'd still have much worse quality.

I can play a game while someone else uses the computer or vice versa. Why get that video card for the same price as a game system when you'd just have to share?

Funny - I don't use the console much because it would mean nobody could watch the television, whereas the PC doesn't interfere with anyone else. This may be less of a factor in the US, where I understand you have several televisions per room. ;)

Console games are Bugfree (TM). They are. I have maybe found 1 or 2 MINOR bugs in console games over the years. Every third PC game I buy must be returned to WAL*MART because it won't install correctly on my computer.

Yep, the tendency to release games before they're ready (especially just before the holiday season) and then patch them later is horrible... although it's not universal.

The controllers are the best designed ever.

For certain games, yes they are... which is why I have a USB adapter that lets me plug a playstation controller into my PC. So I can play console racers like NFS: Underground the way they were designed. And then I switch to a mouse and keyboard for something like Far Cry.

Both platforms have advantages and disadvantages... and they also tend to appeal to different people. Claiming that "the only advantage to the PC is for games like Sim City" isn't really accurate.

Re:Why I love my PS2

[tepples]

I'm just being picky, though, consoles are far better value for money - point conceded.

Right, especially when console games support split-screen gaming even when the PC version of the same title doesn't. One Cube at $100 plus one TV at $200 plus one copy of the game vs. four PCs at $500 each and four copies of the game, do the math.

I sit about two feet from my 19 inch screen - to get the same viewing angle on your 27 inch television, you'd need to be three feet away, and you'd still have much worse quality.

Some console games such as Super Smash Bros. Melee are designed to have four people crowded around the same display. Can you comfortably fit four people around a 19 inch display? I've tried it with a 13 inch TV, and it was not at all comfortable.

I don't use the console much because it would mean nobody could watch the television, whereas the PC doesn't interfere with anyone else. This may be less of a factor in the US, where I understand you have several televisions per room. ;)

If your government lays an annual tax on owning a TV tuner (such as the UK government), then buy a tunerless set. Many HDTV sets are tunerless.

Re:Why I love my PS2

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is true that most PC games must come on 2 or 3 CD's, it's only a minor annoyance when you realize that, after installation, you will often only need one of them, or perhaps none

This may be ( depending on the game ) because the game maker decided not to add such data intensive features as non-midi soundtrack and character voices so that they *could* release on only 2 or 3 CDs.

A game running at 640x480 will look horrible on a large TV, but significantly less so on a smaller monitor.

Games running on TV monitors generally run at 320x240 I believe, and don't look that bad especially when played with an infrared controller sitting comfortably on the couch 10 feet away.

And I would rather have the company give me a bugfree product to begin with so I can play it immediately after buying it than have to wait for them to ( hopefully ) release a patch later.

A joystick cannot match the sheer speed and control that a mouse provides, and keys are much easier on the fingers than console joysticks/controllers (remember how your hand hurt after playing Halo on the Xbox for too long?)

Keyboards & mice have their advantages, and can be purchased for the PS2 I believe ( though games that support them may be hard to find ). As for ergonomics, I'd take a controller over a keyboard. I type all day long, I don't need to be using a keyboard any more than neccessary.

As for the edgyness of PC games and the availability of free stuff and for general usefullness I agree that the PC much better. I have a console for laughs & games, but you can pull my PC from my cold dead hands. I don't see any reason why consoles can't have properly rated games other than the fact that there are clueless rubes that assume that any console games are 'toys' and hence find to give to children, and who are then shocked when it is a little off color, and then start a parent's crusade against it.

Re:Why I love my PS2

[subsonic]

I've had this thought, and i think it could lead to a bit of "standardization" in the PC market. Isn't there, eventually, some sort of upward limit in video card power? I know you can always make them faster or more powerful (or other ambiguous terms) but at some point, how much power do you really need? At some point, programmers will be able to create, literally, just about anything on screen that they want visually with complete clarity and unflinching speed. I'm not saying this will happen in the next cycle of video cards, but I do feel that it could happen, thus reducing the hardware issue inherent in gaming. Is my thinking completely wrong here?

Re:Why I love my PS2

[jensen404]

There is still a loooong way to go before everything a game maker wants to put on screen can be put on screen... if ever. Even movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy have CG frames that can take hours to render, yet do not using many 3d techniques because they are so slow.... radiosity, correct shadows from area lights, etc. And games still don't look as good as Toy Story(1995), despite seemingly every new graphics engine being compared with it.

I think the important question is: when will increased hardware capabilities be unimportant to gameplay? I have a Gamecube, and some of the games couldn't have been made effectively on the N64, such as Pikmin and Metroid Prime. Things like physics in Halflife 2, and foliage in Farcry are things that can affect gameplay in the FPS world. Then again, real time radiosity could add to gameplay too :-)

yes, because of piracy folks!

[peteshaw]

Its really simple folks. Because pc's are by nature hackable, the media used to populate games will be able to copied reasonably easily. Users tend to hate dongles, activation, and other measures that thwart this.

On the other hand, consoles can use custom media, custom hardware, and other features that 'harden' the platform, and piracy difficult. Also because of this, consoles have a much larger rental market. (that plus the plugNplay nature of consoles.) The rental market enlarges the aggregate, and so standalone PC games are much harder to make money on.

Not that I seriously expect it,

[Xzzy]

I think it would be interesting for PC gaming to become so irrelevent that the argument of "well your os (OSX/linux/whatever) can't play any games" becomes invalid.

I don't think it will ever reach that point, but considering the "alternative" OS's are competing viably against every other facet of windows, marginalize the gaming and perhaps some real cuts into the microsoft monopoly could be made.

I'm sure a lot of us would gleefully delete our windows partitions, at the least. ;)

Re:Not that I seriously expect it,

[Anonymous Coward]

you fucking page widener, go away, no one wants you here

the way I see it

[rabbot]

Certain games as well as certain activities will always be more accessible with either the console or the PC, so neither will be dieing any time soon. I'm not going to play a FPS with a console controller, just like I wouldn't want to set up a LAN just to play Smash Bros. It all works out.

For arcade action: NEO-GEO or actual arcade game.

[iamcf13]

I grew up during the heyday of videogaming (late '70s - early '80s) and had a chance to play games on a NEO-GEO console some years ago.

It was the only gaming console available at the time of its release to give the player the full arcade gaming experience as it was the home version of actual SNK arcade gaming hardware.

Though incredibly expensive (~$700.00 game console and ~$200.00 game cartridges), all the other home gaming consoles available at the time paled in comparison.

As for me, I'd rather play actual arcade games. The problem is, I can barely find any of the games to play that I've enjoyed playing in my youth. Nowadays, the most popular games out there fall into three broad categories:

1) Driving games (such as Sega's MONACO GP and OUTRUN)

2) Shooting games (such as Nintendo's HOGAN'S ALLEY)

3) Fighting games (such as CAPCOM'S STREET FIGHTER line of arcade games)

Arcade industry: Please bring back the 'golden era' videogames.

They didn't have the eyecandy that today's videogames have, but they sure were fun to play!

Two words: Mario Kart

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore PC LAN party enthusiast, going back to the days of Doom 1. Ahh, I remember screwing around with some freeware DOS IPX program on BNC/coax ethernet. We were so crazy, we setup a dedicated quake server on a computer with a modem and had people connect to the server over the modem and play us on our lan. It was cool!

But apparently you have not experienced throwing 4 gamecubes in a room and making a gamecube lan and playing 16 player mario kart. Oh. My. God.

And you don't need 32"+ tvs either-- their are VGA cables available for the GC. I believe their are similar things available for XBOX for those XBOX halo parties.

PC gaming will never die, this debate is as old as dirt and I'm tired of hearing it because I hate all the PC gaming haters. They've never experienced true gaming bliss and purposefully turn themselves away from the light.

Yeah! Hardcore will never die!

Not to call out the trolls, but...

[Dragoon412]

...PC games are on their way out.

The PC's viability as a gaming rig, as best as I can tell, rests on two traits: superior display technology (via hi-resolution displays), and superior control in some games, via a mouse/keybaord setup.

Think about that... the PC's viability rests upon a rapidly-closing gap in display technology (see: HDTV), and $10 peripheral (and even at that, I think if half the people shrieking about the loss of control with dual analog would actually give it a fair shot, they're see that's not the case; I mean, how long did it take to get good with a kb/mouse in the first place?).

So, what we'll have in a few years are:

PCs:
Pros:
+Multi-function
+Large back catalog of games that may or may not actually work
Cons:
-Hideously expensive in terms of upkeep (hardware)
-Game-breaking driver and hardware-related problems
-Expensive OS required in addition to expensive hardware
-Notorious for buggy releases with players essentially paying money to do QA work for publishers, and devs with a "we might fix problems later" mentality.

Consoles:
Pros:
+Comparitively inexpensive
+Works with already-ubiquitous displays
+Little to no hassle to play games; consoles just work (for the most part... Ubi can't seem to get it right)
+Excellent performance due to standardized hardware
Cons:
-Can't play games based around bleeding edge hardware.

So what's left? Online play? Xbox Live blows away anything the PC's ever seen. Give it another generation to clean up the UI and make a few other minor improvements, and online gaming via PC will feel downright archaic.

The point is, considering the cost and issues inherent in PC gaming, and the console market rather swiftly nullifying the PC's few advantages, what possible reason could there be for the continuation of the PC as a gaming platform?

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[jjohnson]

One con to consoles that you left out: for most people with a serious PC that can play most games, adding a second system hooked up to the TV seems like an unnecessary pain in the ass. If you're someone who normally has a pretty good computer in regular use, a console and a new set of games seems like an expensive luxury.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[necrognome]

You missed a major disadvantage for consoles:

The majority of the games are targetted towards 15-18 yr. olds who think they are 25. Games requiring deep thinking and an attention span (Final Fantasy has little strategic/tactical depth) rarely see the light of day on a console that is not the GBA (compare the GBA's strategy titles to those on the PS2).

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[Phemur]

If the demise of PC gaming is evaluated solely on your arguments, then I'd agree. However, I think you've missed a few arguments that change the picture somewhat.

First, PCs are just as ubiquitous as televions, which eliminates the high price argument. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that PC gaming is cheaper, since you don't have to spend money on the console.

Besides, contrary to what most think, you do not need a bleeding edge machine to play most games. You can get entry level machines that are roughly the same price as top-end consoles that have more than enough horsepower to run most games.

Second, the independent game and modding market is really picking up speed. Some very high quality titles are coming out of indie studios, and they're only available on PC. There's no motivation for indie developers to write these games for consoles, since the distribution costs would be too high. This may change if consoles are able to download and store games in the future.

Third, consoles have been around a long time, and it hasn't affected the PC game market at all. As a matter of fact, they've been around longer than PCs, yet the PC gaming industry has never been healthier.

Fourth, the market is big enough to support PC gaming and console gaming. There's no reason why one would die in favor of the other.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Phemur

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[brucmack]

I would add a couple of points here, however.

First of all, the PC is only an expensive platform if it is purchased solely for gaming. How often is this the case? Most households are connected to the internet nowadays, implying that they own a PC. And even a sub-$500 PC will play almost all games fairly decently. As for the OS, what PC doesn't have it installed anyway? This is part of the cost of the PC, which is not necessarily a cost for gaming.

Plus, to make a good performing gaming PC, all one really needs is a $200-300 video card, which is right in the range of console prices. CPU speed is generally less important with most games.

Secondly, you're ignoring an important advantage PC games have: modding. If Halflife had've been released on the Xbox, would there have been a Counterstrike? Furthermore, much of the enjoyment I get out of some of my old games comes from playing custom levels with custom models, even if it isn't a total mod (like with some of the X-Wing series of games, for example... Just drop in some new ship models and add value to the game).

The thing is, PC games were never more popular when I was growing up. Ever since the NES came into my life, I've always known way more people who play console games than PC games. The only real difference now is that there are three big consoles, so the market has probably shifted a little further towards consoles. This doesn't mean the end of PC gaming. There are still millions of PC gamers, and this demand will continue to drive a supply to meet it, Duke Nukem Forever jokes aside.

Some of your other points are valid, though maybe not as important as you make them out to be. Yes, some game developers release problematic first versions to fix them with patches, but this is the exception, not the norm. More often than not, changes are to fix glitches on certain hardware, and this is something that no amount of QA in house can completely get rid of. It also serves to counter your "Game-breaking driver and hardware-related problems" point, as games are generally updated to fix such problems. Heck, there are quite a few old games that got updates to make them Windows XP compatable.

Basically, the only games I have that I can't play anymore are the ones that came before Windows 95. Basically that's a bunch of games that are at least 10 years old. How many people are still playing console games from 10 years ago? Sure, there may be some, but there are also some who kept around their old PCs or set up a DOS boot partition to play their old PC games.

The only real con I see for PC games is the ease of use. The cost doesn't have to be high, both in initial investment and upkeep, since games are very good and making sure they work respectably on older hardware. Consoles just have the simplicity that a PC can't have, and this is especially appealing to parents who don't really know any better. This is why consoles are definitely still marketed towards younger audiences, as well.

Now, I'm not going to get into the multiplayer argument because I've never used Xbox Live, but it is safe to say that there is nothing there that can't be done with PCs. The other issue is that besides MMORPGs, multiplayer PC games are generally free.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[Stripe7]

A PC is cheaper than a HDTV/console combo. I watch TV at the same time while I am playing computer games, not possible with a console games, unless I buy another TV.
I do not see one or the other dying actually. What I expect is a merger of the two. I see the Xbox evolving into the M$ version of the Macintosh.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[NotReallyApathetic]

The main difference, IMHO between console games and PC games is the amount of brainpower needed to play each one. I am willing to shell out the cash, the time, and the effort to play games on PC because very few titles on any console platform offer much intellectual stimulation. I have no interest in "twitch" games in which you have to jump from one platform to another or some other mindless task easily accomplished by a red bull swigging juvenile. I want to be challenged mentally, so I play on the PC.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[Eccles]

I wonder...

If one of us wrote and distributed a really thorough consoles vs. PC games comparison, listing all the conceivable pluses and minuses of each, along with some market analysis, would that ever end a debate like this?

Most of us, after all, can agree on most of the facts; the only real point of discussion is which are most important. And that really depends on what type of gaming you enjoy and under what circumstances.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

3 Reasons why I currently prefer PC to console:

1. Game samples: I can download game demos, download freeware games, or get copies from friends. This all beats the crap out of renting from Blockbuster or playing a game at your friend's house.

2. Gamefaqs.com: There's nothing like alt+tabbing to the FAQ while you play, to know exactly where that hidden area is.

3. Sound: My Klipsch surround sound speakers make the games super realistic. And if someone is sleeping, I just plug in my headphones.

4. Programmable Hotkeys, and lots of 'em.

That stated, the ultimate gaming platform is a holodeck. Can you imagine Baldur's Gate on a holodeck? There I went and drooled all over myself again...

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not comparing price/performance between consoles and PCs. Instead, you falsely compare with current costs of new PC hardware with constant or little improvement of console hardware. Remember how much the PS2 cost, when it debuted? How much will the next generation of consoles cost? If you wanted a video card from 2 years ago today, it doesn't cost like new video cards, so why compare prices to consoles?

Moreover, don't you upgrade to new consoles to play bleeding edge console games? You justify buying the next generation console, but condemn PC upgrades?

As long as people have PCs, why not play games? Why not create games for this market?

PCs:
Pros:
+Console Emulation
+Create mods
+Each mod becomes a new game
+Strategy, RTS, and sim games
+Better looking games (more power)
+Better resolution
+Online/LAN play without split screen seizures
+Scalable (Freedom to upgrade)

Consoles:
Cons:
-Linear games
-Locked-in addons
-Permanent bugs
-Static performance (cannot upgrade, even cheaply)
-Doesn't work with monitors
-difficult to back up games (without hardware mods)
-It's why they called it a con-sole

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[brucmack]

The thing is, there can never be an end to debate like this, because neither thing can ever be better than the other for everyone. It's a matter of personal preference. It's like asking whether cheesecake will ever win the marketshare from ice cream.

My post wasn't intended to say that PC gaming is better than console gaming, merely that the parent post hadn't covered the bases very well. Personally I enjoy both types of gaming, but ultimately I spend more time at my computer nowadays, mostly because I don't watch much TV anymore. It's funny... When I used to watch TV, I'd often play a console game in between shows I wanted to watch since I was already there. Now, since I'm usually either browsing the net or writing reports on my computer, that'll always be my first choice for gaming. Basically, I prefer PC gaming now for the exact reason I used to prefer console gaming. Weird. :P

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[DeadScreenSky]

Huh?

A new console is roughly the cost of 3 new games or less...it isn't that expensive compared to the rest of the gaming costs involved in what is a luxury hobby.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

xbox live could not be done on the PC because the PC is open architecture and connects to an open network. closed consoles connecting to a closed network have a much easier time eliminating hacks and cheats simply because there's no easy access. Sure, cheating in xbox games would be *possible*, but it's technically out of the reach of script kiddies and others simply because there is no user access to the console save through the game itself.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[DeadScreenSky]

(compare the GBA's strategy titles to those on the PS2).

I don't even own a PS2, but still I know how nonsensical that statement is. The PS2 has a large number of deep strategy games, far more than the GBA does. Disagaea, Front Mission 4 (hell, and all of the previous PSX ones playable on PS2), etc.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[CronoCloud]

Actually there is a CS for the X-box, it's a recent release.

But why do you think it's taking valve so long to do HL2? They know everyone is still playing CS so they aren't losing mindhshare. They know they can slack off. You'd never catch Squaresoft or Level 5 doing something like that. They can even put out multiple games in a single year because they don't have that "all we need is 2 guys in a garage" mindset. 90 percent of garage games suck. 90 percent of mods suck. Myabe more PC games would be released on schedule and in larger numbers if PC gamers actually bought games instead of pirating them or playing mods.

By the by, all PS2 online multiplayer games are free, except for the two MMORPGS (EQOA and FFXI)

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[brucmack]

What you say is correct, but there is nothing preventing a company from releasing a hack-proof multiplayer game for PC. It just takes some extra effort, and usually diligent patching of the problems that come up.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[jjohnson]

It's not a lot of cash in and of itself, but when it seems unnecessary because I've already got a good rig... and while the console isn't that much, all the games I have to (re)buy for it adds up.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[DeadScreenSky]

But you don't buy a console to rebuy games, you buy it because it has games you can't get on your current system. It isn't like all games are the same - if you want a fighting game (just one example), you need a console of some sort.

Sure, if all you want to play is FPS and RTS games a PC will probably be fine. But the PC simply misses out on a huge (and growing) number of other genres.

Re:Not to call out the trolls, but...

[obeythefist]

The estimated release price of the next generation of high-end consoles (PS/3, neXtBox) is looking to be just shy of $1,000 (ONE THOUSAND US DOLLARS) (sorry, got nigerian for a minute there). It'll drop sharply in the months following release as the console makers finish milking the rich and desperate console gamers.

That'll buy you a very nice gaming PC, nonetheless. And the PC will probably include a very nice monitor.

Don't count your chickens

[HunterZ]

There will always be a strong market for PC games as long as PCs are at the cutting edge of gaming hardware due to their upgradability and superior I/O capabilities (e.g., mice and monitors versus gamepads and televisions).

PC games can also be much, much bigger due to greater storage capacity. Yes, the XBox has a hard drive, but it's already been out a while and the rumor is that the XBox 2 won't have one. The PS2 just got a hard drive in the US, but that system is already passed the middle of its life-span, so fewer games will take full advantage of a hard drive.

In the more distant future though (say the next decade or two) I do ultimately see computers, gaming consoles, televisions and telephones merging. Already computers are used for all of those things, but not yet by everyone. Of course, this still means the PC will have won over consoles and not the other way around ;)

Screen Resolution

[orev]

PC's simply have higher screen rez, and that's a giant advantage. I will never play a game that doesn't run at least 1024x768. Consoles get 640x480 at best. Even on a 50" TV, that's just crap.

Re:Screen Resolution

[bkakes]

This might be true until you factor in HDTV. This generation of consoles don't support it, really, except for a little support in a few Xbox games. But the next generation certainly will. Right now, you might go "but oh, HDTV is so expensive!" And, to a point, you'd be right. But think about it. My Xbox + my 65" Sony HDTV cost me just over $2 grand. Can you imagine spending $2k on a decent gaming PC? I certainly can. Yet my TV also allows me to watch movies and TV in an incredible manner, providing yet more value than a gaming PC would. Moreover, in the future, people will already have HDTVs, meaning that the console price once again becomes $200 or whatever. So you'll see the "screen res sucks" argument fading pretty soon.

Two Words: MARIO KART!

[celerityfm]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore PC LAN party enthusiast, going back to the days of Doom 1. Ahh, I remember screwing around with some freeware DOS IPX program on BNC/coax ethernet. We were so crazy, we setup a dedicated quake server on a computer with a modem and had people connect to the server over the modem and play us on our lan. It was cool!

But apparently you have not experienced throwing 4 gamecubes in a room and making a gamecube lan and playing 16 player mario kart. Oh. My. God.

And you don't need 32"+ tvs either-- their are VGA cables available for the GC. I believe their are similar things available for XBOX for those XBOX halo parties.

PC gaming will never die, this debate is as old as dirt and I'm tired of hearing it because I hate all the PC gaming haters. They've never experienced true gaming bliss and purposefully turn themselves away from the light.

Yeah! Hardcore will never die!
(modz plz delete my anonymous coward post, doh!)

Re:Two Words: MARIO KART!

[Mr. Piddle]

(modz plz delete my anonymous coward post, doh!)

Sorry, but Slashdot's database literally carves your post into stone on the side of Michigan's highest mountain. The plan is to provide archaeologists from the year 2434 with an accurate historical record of Microsoft during our era.

Re:Two Words: MARIO KART!

[Fjord]

Actually, everything at -1 drops off when the page is archived. 0 might too, but I don't recall if that is the case.

Re:Two Words: MARIO KART!

[Mr. Piddle]

I understand your confusion. The elevation where the post is carved is determined by moderation. Of the -1 posts, any that reference shocking hobbies get dumped into Lake Erie (don't eat the fish!). The rest get buried in a poor neighborhood in Detroit. This is why they are not immediately visible in the archives.

Re:Two Words: MARIO KART!

[Minna Kirai]

we setup a dedicated quake server on a computer with a modem and had people connect to the server over the modem and play us on our lan.

How sporting. Why, I'll bet some of those fellows had a latency of only 3/10th of a second worse than you. And how much damage can a grenadelauncher possibly do in 0.3 seconds?

Re:Two Words: MARIO KART!

[Fjord]

The rest get buried in a poor neighborhood in Detroit.

That would explain Eminem.

Consoles are more economic to develop for

[Dhericean]

There is a problem with PC vs. Console development that means whilst there will continue to be PC game development the economics will push the developers to concentrate on consoles.

• Prices for a AAA game (and even A and B games) on a console are more stable and stay higher much longer. Therefore the return is more predictable. The bargin bucket syndrome does not hit as fast or as hard as for PC games.
• The developer is writing for a stable and known platform so that they are coding the core engine and program rather than sorting out support for XXXs latest bit twiddler card.
• As part of the development process for console games they are tested to a high degree for problems.
• The console marketplace sells more games per unit than the PC. So particularly for the AAA games there is a fairly captive marketplace.
• The fact that console gamers in general do not continue to play a single game for a prolonged period of time means there is more opportunity to sell new products.
• I believe that the people with the money also see the console market as more stable. And they after all in the end call the shots.
• Whilst there is a hardcore of players who want the latest and greatest the majority of even PC games sales are not run on cutting edge hardware. This is of course even more true of consoles (as there has not been a release for several years).

Whilst as a PC gamer I do not necessarily like these facts I can see that they are what encourage studios such as Bioware and Ion Storm (Austin) to develop at least some of their titles with a strong view to the console.

It looks like Microsoft's new XNS API may exacerpate this with concentration on standardisation of Input to the lowest common denominator of the Console's capabilities.

Consequently...

[Chitlenz]

Using URU, The Sims, and 'Mythica' as examples is a bit of a stetch. These were all 'odd' in the sense that they tried to go in radically different gameplay/theme directions from the standard fantasy/scifi staple of the genre. That plus URU and Sims are like non-combat? wtf? And Mythica was rumored to be frought with internal conflicts between the dev. team and the MS mothership, so no big shock there.

I mean the answer is in the question about these, but lemme know when World of Warcraft gets canned mmk?

-chitlenz

It depends on the future of "bug acceptance"

[pelsmith]

In the PC world, for whatever reason, we allow games to be released before they are finished. We accept that the game we initially install on our hard drives may very well be non-functional for the first week or so, until the first patch is released.

Traditionally, console games were not like that. A console game had one chance to get it right. If it was buggy on release, it stayed that way forever. Hence, console games tended to work from day one.

But, now we have online updates to memory cards...and even more scary, hard drives on our consoles. If this leads game developers to believe they can release incomplete games, then what difference does it make?

How about doing something real!

[Anonymous Coward]

Simulations are fine for practice, but for the
money it costs, get outside and DO something!!!

You like shoot 'em up games, there is paintball.

You like fantasy worlds, there are CON's and
renasance festivals, heck even swinger parties.

You like to fly, there is RC, and Ultralights,
and even building your own plane and flying it
is pretty cheap.

Yes, games have a bunch of technology, but imagine
being able to feel as well as you hear and see
the action!

Re:How about doing something real!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those of us who like games like Worms? Where are we supposed to get out violent combat, our bazookas, exploding bananas and bouncing, exploding sheep?!?

And how the heck can you compare the cost of a video game with that of paintball kit, or even building your own plane?!

Re:How about doing something real!

[KD5YPT]

I'll give you a few reason why people want to play games then doing "something"

1. They don't wanna die (sure it'll be cool to do tricks like in SSX, but you'll kill yourself if you botched the real thing)

2. They are not god. (Not even the mayor can call down alien invasion, tornado, and natural disaster like one can in SimCity series, or something)

3. They're not licensed. (Flight Sim, need a license for plane, some people just want to fly but don't have a license, and RC isn't realistic enough for them)

4. It's illegal to kill. (Paintball is all nice and good, but you don't have sniper guns in paintball because its inaccurate, and it's illegal to use real gun. So to quech those killing thirst, a video game sounds good)

5. They don't exist. (CON's and Renassance festival don't exactly have goblin you can kill, or real prince/princess who is not totting around a cellphone or with a body guard. On the other end of the timeline, we don't have tacyon canon nor advance space fighters for us to blow each other. Nor have we found any aliens willing to keep our butt so we can get the satisfaction out of killing them.

Display Res Is A Factor

[SlipJig]

One thing I've always disliked about console games is that they're played on a TV, which has much lower resolution than a computer monitor. I like high resolution - for example my laptop runs 1600 x 1200. I appreciate the extra detail in computing and PC gaming, but as I don't watch much TV, I only have a 19" TV and haven't yet moved to HDTV. I might consider doing so and getting a console when and if they have direct output to HDTV (if they already do, please let me know ;) As it is, console games generally look like crap on my TV.

Re:Display Res Is A Factor

[rcastro0]

I might consider (...) getting a console when and if they have direct output to HDTV (if they already do, please let me know

Then see games supporting 16:9 screen format and higher (HDTV) resolutions here: HDTVArcade

Basically the HDTV games are in the XBox platform, while progressive scan (480p) are also in the Cube and the PS2.

You can visually check what HDTV does to a game in this comparison. Still not a computer CRT, but quite improved compared to your old 19".

"personalized" computers

[Squideye]

PCs give a tremendous amount of control over the user experience, and a tremendous amount of flexibility for game design, that most consoles don't allow (or at the very most, exploit).

Keyboard and mouse control have already been mentioned. Let's take it a step further into oddball-land, with trackballs, spaceorbs, cyberman, joysticks, flight harnesses, USB peripherals, voice-activated microphone controls (UT2004)...

Then there's hardware modification. Modding a console voids your warranty and risks prosecution under the DMCA, or at the very least disqualifies you from online gameplay. This is compounded by the fact that to make consoles cost-effective, they need to have lowest-common-denominator performance profiles: the cheapest, minimal amount of RAM necessary to run anticipated games, the most cost-effective processor available when the entire line is published, basically minimal functionality beyond what the designers anticipate. A PC user can increase performance beyond the "specs" by loading up on RAM, high-performance video cards, hard disk space for more saved games, multiple-monitor output... basically, today's PCs have the capacity for levels of performance that even the "next generation" of consoles won't have when they're finally released. 3GHz processors with 1GB of RAM? With increasing bus speed and dedicated graphics processors, the kind of gameplay possible with PC hardware will doubtless exceed what any priced-to-sell console will do (keeping in mind that new consoles will probably go for $299-$399 and lose their vendors millions of dollars in the initial stages).

Of course, there's also software modification. 120GB hard drives mean that we can download Counter Strike and make Half Life into a whole new game. We can download Enemy Territory, Aliens for Doom, or Quake Rally, or any of thousands of mods which make our game into something wholly new. We can create, share, and seek out new third-pary maps, models, skins and rules for our FPSs, and gameplay experiences like Neverwinter Nights (as opposed to just MMORPGs) become possible. At the least, gameplay becomes more participatory and creative, and in many cases, game design careers are launched this way.

It's commonly noted that progress in technology is driven by two applications: porn and games. If consoles become the only venue for gaming, tech progress will face a glacial pace of innovation. While "the gameplay experience" hasn't been pushed on the PC recently thanks to gaming market stagnation into a few reasonably-successful genres, the capacity for PC gameplay innovation has always been vast; this can lead to new ideas in UI, in AI, in graphics quality and performance, sound, in modifiability (is that a word?).

The only real qualm people seem to have with the PC as a game platform is that games don't seem to sell too well. Well, some of them do. Others just don't seem to sell well enough to justify Hollywood-level production values. Ingenuity can come from smaller development studios too, and the nature of the PC and Internet allow these studios channels of distribution distinct from the Big Studio's dominance of shelf space in EBGames. Doom was an object lesson in this, but it doesn't end there. At least, hopefully it won't. Steam, for all its faults, is a bold new way to sell games; in an ideal world, Valve would open up Steam as a shareware distribution system, with new demos and for-purchase games showing up there from time to time.

Wow, I ranted.

Re:"personalized" computers

[tuffy]

The only real qualm people seem to have with the PC as a game platform is that games don't seem to sell too well.

Another problem is a lack of standardization in the platform itself. For example, you might allow a user to have gamepad control, but you have no guarantee how many buttons the pad might have, whether it has analog sticks or what arrangement they're in. To go a step further, if one owns a Playstation 2, one can buy almost any Playstation 2 game without worrying about having a sufficiently fast processor, graphics card and hard drive space. For the vast majority of console games, the console itself (and a TV) is all that's needed to play them.

PCs have many advantages as a gaming platform, as you've stated, but all that power and customization comes at a price. Though I believe both will continue to exist as seperate and viable gaming platforms for the foreseeable future.

Never say die

[Mulletproof]

"Is the console destined for superiority, or will the ubiquitous need and superior user input of the PC keep it as a viable game platform?"

Well, the superior input device is only part of the reason. Budget is another. Quite frankly, you just can't get the omph out of a console you do out of a nice PC. That omph translates into a better game in most cases.

Take Ghost Recon for example (Xbox/PC). Not were the controls just a bit jacked (managable but not wholey intuitive), but the game had to be noticably scaled down because of the budget hardware consoles are forced to operate at in order to be viable products. No team Charlie, smaller maps, limited multiplayer potential. We're not even talking about newer games like UT2k4 whose HDD footprint is 6GB. Likewise, these games are more complex and might very well require patching, and unless you have a Live-like connection, you're SOL.

I think there'll always be a market for the PC, because it represents high end, complex gaming, not something you can normally find on your average budget console. For that same reason, I think the console market will always be larger, but it won't by any means threaten to kill off the PC gaming market.

In related news...

[mabu]

"New hammer promises to change the way homes are built"

It's all about the software. The box is irrelevent. Not that people would know this nowadays because software seems to have taken a back seat to hardware development, but there may come a time where a title will be so innovative that whatever platform it's on will be THE platform. Until then, the whole industry is in a big circle-jerk feeding the populace more hardware with little or no real improvement.

PC gaming will be around as long as the PC

[Ochobee]

I don't think that PC gaming will ever die out for one simple reason:

Everyone will own the platform.

Some people may by an Xbox, some may buy a PS2 and some may buy a Gamecube. When future generations of consoles are released, there will be people who buy them as well.

But nearly everyone is going to have a PC (or a Mac) because they use it for other things as well. Not everyone will stay on the cutting edge of PC gaming, but they will continue to use the PC for years to come.

Re:PC gaming will be around as long as the PC

[KD5YPT]

But let's put this in practical view. PC as a gaming system has several edge over console gaming and vice versa.
PC is a good platform for FPS, RTS, and Planning-related simulations (Sim City type) due to its mouse and keyboard interface.
Console is perfect for Fighting games where interface and uber-powerful graphics are the norm and flight combat, also console allow the game developer to know exactly what type of control they need to anticipated.

Consoles are the opitome of plug and play....

[MagicDude]

I was a PC gamer starting since back in the day when I would play FIRE on my Dell 386 (which incidentally cost $5000 back then). I've slowly transitioned to consoles just because it's so much more convenient to play. Pop a disc in, turn it on, and I'm playing in under 30 seconds. It never crashes, never have to install anything, and there's never a system conflict; you never have to reconfigure your console to support your new game. But above all, the games are honestly more fun to play. PC games are nice and all, but I like not having to memorize 8 billion keyboard commands to play a game. Also, when you get game frustration, it's much better to throw the controler than to smash the keyboard (both things I've done before). Things like Warcraft will always be a PC game, but I think all other games could easily be done on console, and it'll be better for it.

It's About Compatability, Stupid

[Avery Mahan]

The fundamental problem with PC games from my perspective is that there are too many games written for high-end systems without regard for the fact that most people will not upgrade their hardware to play a game. I have three kids, we all have computers, and we turn over one or two new boxes per year (I see this as a cost of raising kids these days). Because we turn over many boxes we have no ultra-primo machines. I've just retired a P200 (pre-MMX) machine. Folks, in the real, non-ivory-tower world, computers last for years (like five years or more). And while I don't expect the modern games to run on a P200, just yesterday I was helping out a friend whose kids couldn't get a PC game to run. Turns out the graphics card that came with their name-brand P4 (complete with a 64MB RAM video card and DVD+/-R burner)did not have the capabilities to run the game. It's absurd to think that I (as a parent) am going to purchase video games which often don't work with new computers when I can purchase a game for my X-Box or PlayStation that I know will work. Games that don't work reduce my trust in the market, and reflects on my decision to purchase any game, even those that do work on older machines. I am no luddite, but it is often an effort just to make time to go out and purchase the game in the first place. The frustration of my kids and the annoyance of having to go out and return the game makes it generally a losing proposition for me. Oh,and just as a side note, those disclaimers about required video card capabilities, well, they may serve as a legal cover-your-ass, but beyond the size of the video card they mean nothing to the average user picking up a game for their kid at Wal-Mart. Because of this PC games will be marginalized. Only hardcore gamers will play them on PCs. That's a pitifully small market compared to that addressed by the gaming boxes. As you grow up, the realities of life hit you and you realize that PC games are fun, but they are not your top priority. Anything PC games do to make my life more difficult pushes them down the priority list. Reality bites, but there you have it.

Credit Cards are Evil

[Chibi]

In a supposedly down economy, where people are losing jobs left and right, how do we come up with the cash and time to buy both PC games and consoles?

As another poster pointed out, one fact is that while unemployment is high, there are still a good number of people with jobs.

The other thing to factor in, though, is that in the US, most people aren't as financially responsible as they should be. We love using our credit cards to spend money we don't have. It almost seems as if we think there's something wrong with saving money in this country. And our federal government is leading the charge.... Last time I heard numbers, the reports indicated that over 50% of households live paycheck-to-paycheck. Now, there are probably some people who are spending their money on essentials, but I imagine there are more than a few people spending beyond their means on leisure items, such as a video games.

Re:Credit Cards are Evil

[bludstone]

Yes. This is the norm.

The average american has over 10 credit cards and 10,000 in debt. Most of it on meaningless consumerist crap.

I, myself, fell into this rut. I have now since paid off my CC debt and Am selling MORE of the "Stupid Crap" I bought, trying to minimize the impact.

But now im not living paycheck to paycheck, and Im even earning EXTRA income. Its a good feeling to have more then 2 months rent in the bank account.

Let me tell you, the temptation is near unbearable at times. Its so easy to "click" and order 4 more dvds.

I still slip up from time to time, but at least im down to 4 dvds/games a month rather then 10.

OLD FART

[Anonymous Coward]

You ever heard of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms"? Fantastic grand strategy game franchise that switched to being console only in the mid-90's.

Consoles are improving...

[Anonymous Coward]

To combat the claim that PCs have superior input facilities, console manufacturers will soon be including keyboards, mice, and USB ports (to allow for further expansion of input capabilities) in their next product line. Once these things get faster processors, large hard drives, floppy drives, and DVD R/W drives, PCs won't stand a chance.

Re:Consoles are improving...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lessee...
Keyboard and mouse.
Hard drive, floppy drive, DVD R/W
USB expansion options...

Whats the difference between that and a PC?
1. Crappy display (TV compared to monitor)
2. OS (Or lack therof as far as the user is concerned)
3. Flexibility of use.

High end consoles will just be PC's with very limited uses hooked up to your TV.

Most of the problems presented against PC's as a gaming platform are not problems with the PC itself. They are problems with the implimentation. Driver conflicts and software issues shouldn't happen with PC's. More stringent compatibility standards would make the usage of PC's much easier. (not just in gaming) If your video card meets the requirements, it SHOULD work fine. The fact that you need to hunt for fixes and patches is a failure on the part of those providing the products.

Windows based computers give up stability for compatibility with the most manufacturers it can. Anybody can make a crappy product, write a crappy driver, and it will be considered "Windows compatible" even though it's drivers will fubar the drivers of 20 other devices on the market.
This is not true for other platforms, such as Mac. Far more stable platform, but broad compatibility is sacrificed to get that stability.

Personally, I'd love to see Mac as the dominant platform as I'm sure a majority of the problems people see with PC gaming would disappear.

I still game almost exclusively on PC tho.

I'm loading

[randomErr]

PC Gaming:
- Buy the CD/DVD
- Load the game on HD
- Download patch(es)
- Load newest/special drivers
- Buy more memory/new video card
- Configure network settings
- But special controller
- Play game

Console Gaming:
- Buy the CD/DVD
- Play game

Which would you prefer to do?

IDIOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer gaming is absolutely the most cost effective entertainment mechanism to be invented (next to guitar playing, maybe).

A single $50 computer game can last for thousands and thousands of entertainment hours.

Not dying at all.

[El Camino SS]

Four words for the guy that wrote this article:

Half-Life 2... Doom 3.

Yeah, it's dead.

Why would I want to play Tribes 3 or UT 2k4 when I can play Halo 2 in a couple of months, and perhaps have to spend a couple hundred bucks to get the new machine?

Beacause everyone knows, Halo is "the GREATEST" (Tribes rip-off). Christ, I was playing Tribes so long ago that Microsoft wasn't even in the games business, but instead wanted to sell you a joystick with their one crappy game as their strategy. People are already screaming of the death of the PC as a gaming platform when they do a rehash of an idea that came out FOUR FREAKING YEARS AGO?

Halo? Played it. It sucked. UT 2k4 is where it is at. It was there for all the poor saps that finally discovered that there are sometimes VEHICLES AND MULTIPLAY IN A FPS.

That was five years ago people. Welcome to the future.

Speaking of vehicles, in order to save you fanboys from losing your minds, I won't even discuss the Battlefield games... it would hurt you too much.

So why is PC gaming dead again? Someone please sit me down and explain it to me. I gotta know.

Re:Not dying at all.

[DenOfEarth]

Perhaps it's just me, but my experiences with the unreal tournament games aren't really that much fun. Why? Simply, I think, because they are two fast. A lot of people complained that Halo was too slow, but in my opinion, it works just right, and when I'm playing mutliplayer with my buddies, we are all moving at the same speed. Not being able to turn around in a nanosecond is actually reasonable to me, from a game-playing perspective, as I have to think about where my character is going, and what I'm going to do a bit before I do it, rather than just react.

I should also mention that I don't really care if another game did the vehicles thing before-hand. Good for you for getting into that ahead of some of us, what, like five years ago? Obviously that means any FPS that comes out with vehicles in it is lame. yeh, cool.

Basically it comes down to cost for me

[Hiigara]

I want to play Halo 2, Half-Life 2 and Doom 3. To be able to play those games, I would be required to be an at least $390 video card and about $200 worth of ram. Heck, throw in a new $250 processor and a $120 motherboard while your at it.

Or I could just buy a $190 xbox and Playstation 2.

It's simple numbers.

I'm comfortable running a low end linux computer and a microsoft xbox for my gaming needs.

It's like Microsoft decided to play nice and gave us one of the main aspects of windows (games) without all the other os crap involved.

I can't wait for the Xbox 2.

PC gaming marginalized == good

[IGnatius T Foobar]

I'm probably going to get modded down into the toilet for saying this, but I'd actually like to see the PC get marginalized as a gaming platform.

If consoles become the preferred way to play games by such a significant margin that PC gaming all but disappears, it's a suboptimal but effective way to remove one of the obstacles Linux faces on the desktop. "Lack of games" becomes irrelevant if nobody plays games on Windows either.

Luke! I am your father! Console As Son Of PC

[blueZhift]

I can see that the old PC vs console debate rages on. Right now, I would say if you have both you're in the best of both worlds!

I just got my copy of Final Fantasy XI Online for PS2 and I'm just amazed at all of the progress that has been made in console gaming. But I would say that a lot of this is owed to gaming on the PC. In particular, if the pundits are to be believed and MMO games are the future, then the PC has had a big hand in driving consoles to the next level. This is especially true of the XBox which in turn spurred the continued evolution of the PS2.

One of the things that struck me last night playing FFXI was how easy it was to go from playing MMORPGs on the PC to the PS2. If you've played EverQuest or SWG many of the common keyboard macros are the same. The only thing to really get used to is using the gamepad which I'm liking more and more. In particular, just being able to simply walk instead of running everywhere is soooo easy to do in FFXI with the gamepad. And it feels more natural too. Also the performance was pretty good, even in crowds of players. The only downside so far is that now I need to get a comfy chair for the living room!

Best of all though was just how easy it was to get into the game and start playing. It always takes ages for EQ or SWG to start up and load on my PC. Admittedly, my PC is not the fastest around, but after seeing the PS2 perform, over the same broadband connection, it's not just my PC. I thought about the PC version of FFXI, but the upgrades to play it well on my box would cost more than the PS2 version. And none of my other PC work requires so much horsepower.

Anyway, PC gaming won't die off. The numbers may decline or level off, but I think the PC still has a lot to teach. Consoles are really great at refining gaming for the masses, but are too risky to really innovate on. So don't throw out your PC yet. Heck, I may yet do those upgrades! :-)

I've recently changed my mind about this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I got Ninja Gaiden for the XBOX. If there was a MMORPG with the speed and graphics (and difficulty!) of this game on a console, it would be an amazing game.

Phew!

[callipygian-showsyst]

This news is a big relief for Apple! If gaming on PC platforms withers because of set-top gaming, then Apple no longer has to try to attract game developers to its platform.

Re:Phew!

[blueZhift]

That's an interesting take on this. Given Apple's rumored involvement with the next XBox (G5 Dev Stations), perhaps that is their long term goal.

Maybe XNA will help?

[Jugalator]

XNA is seen as Microsoft's coming successor to DirectX. It's basically a media framework that will be common for the PC and the coming Xbox 2, and thought to replace DirectX. Tools that already exist and are used in Xbox game development will become available for Windows developers and vice versa. With over 20 game and middleware developers already showing interest in this coming technology that was very recently announced, things do look a bit brighter for us PC users as companies will likely have an easier time poerting the games for the different platforms.

This will obviously not help Linux gamers much, but I was planning to continue using my Windows PC as a gaming platform anyway.

Re:XBox 2 is supposed to be more powerful than a P

[Cokebottle308]

I see that the gnomes have a good, firm, grip on your soul ... While anyone would like a large screen, you just cannot duplicate or approach the PC game experience on a console. "Demise of the PC game platform..."??? How can you even move your fingers to type those words (on your PC???) You cannot get the same level of control, quality of graphics and overall experience on any console. "...more powerful than a PC..." More powerful than whose PC, what PCs? Today's PC's, Last month's PCs, more powerful than Alienware, or more powerful than the PC I game on? I defy XBOX or any other console manufacturer to put together a console "...more powerful..." (very subjective statement -- more powerful how?) than my present PC, and for less than or the same money I did it on -- and while your're at it, give me graphics of the same or better quality, and command & control options that are as good as or better than I now enjoy, and the ability to edit my own maps, mod my own weapons (or whatever) and in general play around with the program. You're breathing vaporware, Brother, high on the fumes of hype. Come back to us -- don't go into the light!

It's Evolution, We've seen it before

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Already, there is word that PC game development is withering, even though as a preferential PC gamer I see the best games ever. Is the console destined for superiority

This is kind of a cycle that most of you kiddies are not old enough to remember. The truth is, consumer computing (that's the PC, people.) started out as game consoles that slowly mutated into multi-purpose computers. It's going to happen all over again. Game consoles will slowly become more powerful with more features, until they actually become multi-purpose computers that also play games.

Re:It's Evolution, We've seen it before

[blueZhift]

I agree, but I don't think we'll be running spreadsheets or Quicken on the PS5 or XBox XX in the future. Game consoles will probably become the centers of home entertainment with a few everyday features like email, chat/IM, and shopping functions thrown in.

It'll be really interesting to see how Nintendo fares in all of this. They've steadfastly refused to build anything more than game machines. This isn't all bad, but it does make them look a bit behind the times.

One of the best things to come out of all of this will be easier to use devices. Games are supposed to be fun. So ease of use must be a main focus, which has not always been the case for the PC. So with multipurpose consoles developing, we should also see better and easier to use interfaces.

Re:It's Evolution, We've seen it before

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I agree, but I don't think we'll be running spreadsheets or Quicken on the PS5 or XBox XX in the future.

Maybe not with the PS2, but Microsoft tends to like to evolve it's hardware / software into the toy that does everything. For example, once they evolve xBox into the complete home entertainment center, it's a Microsoft Mindset Logical Next Step to allow "the housewife" to do houshold finances and shopping lists, email, blaw blaw blaw...

The answer is: Neither

[barryfandango]

Look at the home entertainment market. The plasma screen TV is essentially a big monitor, and offers high enough resolution and sharpness to display text and anything else you might like. The PC is slowly morphing into a Home Entertainment Centre; the X-Box itself is just a glorified PC! It's already pretty common to walk into a well equipped Home Theatre room and see a wireless keyboard and mouse on the coffee table. In short: convergence is going to make the distinction between consoles and PC's meaningless. As it stands, the only difference left between the two is the position in which you sit, and how close the screen is to your face.

Follow The Money

[Afty0r]

The trend is obvious - the larger studios are moving - sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly - to consoles, that is if they weren't doing significant console development already.

I believe we'll see any games which provide an experience that can be easily controlled with the console joypad systems (and that will appeal to the console player market - there is definitely some cross-over in these demographics) move, for the most part, to consoles over the next 5-10 years. It's simply too attractive for the big developers to ignore the consoles - standard hardware, little non-commercial piracy, higher margins and combined marketing initiatives are big sells for them.

We will continue to see strategy games, FPS games and console "ports" on the PCs, but the exit of the major players will make way for the international independent gaming scene to surge forward using the now-emptying PC as its platform for success.

In short, I see a sudden exodus of large studios from PC to console being a good thing for innovation in PC gaming.

Console MMORPGs = Teh Suck

[Jarnis]

This is a nice article based on wrong assumptions.

Yes, there has been some spectacular flops in PC MMO space right now. And some big name cancellations (Mythica, for example). This is not due to PC MMOs dying. This is just normal market saturation.

For single player games you pick it up, you whack it for a week or two - or maybe a month if it's REALLY good, and maybe return once or twice later to replay it a bit.

For MMOs, you realistically have time for a single game. Period. Either you catass your way to victory by spending every waking free-time hour playing the single MMO game, or you will be forever n00b in the game(s) of your choice, whining how everyone else is more powerful than you. You cannot *possibly* play two MMOs - you couldn't dedicate enough time to either of them to actually prosper in the game.

So, the beancounters have not yet figured it out - there is room for only a very limited number of successfull MMOs. Maybe 5-10, with some of them bit marginal or with non-mainstream subject matter.

For consoles, none of these basic assumptions change. There are no MMO overload for consoles - yet. So it seems that the market is 'exploding' & growing much faster than PC MMO market. Well duh - thats new market vs mature market.

Until they offer a keyboard with every console, MMOs will never be huge on gaming consoles. Online gaming yes, actual massive online games with dozens/hundreds cooperating - no chance in hell without a keyboard.

Even with customized scripts/bots, multiple accounts/PC:s & web-based tools its almost a 2nd job to run a successful online guild for raids & other high end stuff in most MMOs. With a keyboard. It's *hard* to communicate and coordinate with hundreds of people.

Now try the same thing with just voice comms and no keyboard on a console. Nope, won't fly.

We'll see plenty of persistent world Diablo wannabes and other abominations on Consoles, and the online gaming market on consoles will grow. It won't kill off PC, and it won't move MMO players from PC to consoles. Never. Ever. At least until a console comes with keyboard standard.

Not to mention - TVs suck for displaying text. Another downside for the consoles.

Re:Console MMORPGs = Teh Suck

[CronoCloud]

Both console MMORPGS currently available are for the console (Playstation 2) that has USB ports to plug a keyboard in. Not being able to use a keyboard is a non-issue. And yes I play both EQOA and FFXI

So far the guilds EQOA have been able to coordinate nicely, it's not been a problem that you think it would be.

Oh and text displays just fine on a console, when the game's text font is properly designed. MSNTV formerly WebTV had designe guidelines for that sort of thing. Ideas on how to make things look better. Some of those ideas would apply to games too. Here is one I remember. Colored text on dark backgrounds works better than dark text on light backgrounds.

Both of those console MMORPGS have their text/chat wondows set up to use colored text on a dark background.

I disagree with the premise

[hal2814]

One of the premises of the article is that online gaming on the PC is in decline. This premise is not justified in the article. Every example that the article cites as a failure for online gaming on the PC is based on the monthly-fee-per-game based online gaming model. The article even dismisses UT2004 by stating that it is free to play online so it is not a success. So the according to the Herald, success is achieved by making money after the initial sale of the product. That's a fair assessment, but that leaves another problem. Consoles do have a monthly-fee system, but that fee is paid to the console maker, not the software developer and it covers all titles on the console (if I understand things correctly). How is the console maker getting a monthly fee any different than the ISP getting a monthly fee? The money isn't going to the software developer (or if some of it is, it's probably insignificant) so it's just as much a failure as UT2004 according to the Herald's metric of success. People are willing to pay for a service to play many games online, but they just aren't willing to pay $10-15 per month for a single online game anymore.

Just the facts ma'am

[Explodo]

Consoles make tons more money. The games for consoles were created on PCs. Mods for games are often more popular than the games themselves(Desert Combat, Counterstrike) but must be created on PCs. The most powerful graphics cards available are for PCs. You can say that a console is just as powerful, but you're wrong. Military spec for simulation is 60 fps. A standard TV runs well below that (30, I think). A console only needs to produce 30 fps for a standard TV and then it only has to deal with 544x372(or so) pixels. I try to exceed 30 fps at all times and run a resolution of 1600x1200. That's almost 10 times as many pixels as a console needs to produce. Many people state that a high end PC graphics card costs as much as a console. They're right, but a graphics card that matches the output of a console system costs $50. I, for one, am tired of games coming out for PC that are watered down because they were simultaneously developed for consoles.

I agree.

[polyp2000]

That was my initial thought also; For similar reasons. Although there is a descrepancy "PC" is "PC" ubiquitous with Windows ? I still consider my computer to be a "PC" and its hard drive has never had Windows anywhere near its sectors ;)

I occasionally play games on my Linux box (Vice City via wine , or Max Payne) but usually when I'm really bored and cant access the family TV for PS2. I have spent a substantial amount on PS2 games, and for me knowing that if i buy a game im going to get the same experience as any other ps2 owner and the simply "stick the disc in , switch it on" convenience is why I prefer console gaming, its also more of a social / family event because it gets you in the living room.

In reality the only reason i've got Vice City and Max Payne running under linux is to prove that it can be done and to stick my hand up my gay windows loving friends proverbial ;)

I dont miss the "lack" of games on the linux platform , mainly because i never played games to any degree on my PC hardware anyway. All of the software i need is here and its free and open; stuff like KMail, Gimp, Quanta, OpenOffice it works and it does the job , equally , if not better than windows equivalents. The only thing that I really really miss about windows is the proliferation of Music compostion and Audio editing tools. I'd love to see a linux port of Octamed Soundstudio, I'd love Rosegarden to be the stable alternative to VST (but it aint there yet) There is a lot of cool stuff out there, but the music programs I need are just not quite ready yet.

I went into a local store today and passed the video games section; at least 80% of the games there were for consoles; the rest were PC games, many being those platinum titles in dvd style boxes.

The trouble with PC Gaming is the upgrade cycle, for you everyday PC habits if you buy a top notch PC today it will be fine for years to come. Heck my mother still uses a K6 350mhz with a 10gb hard drive and its fine. If you want to be playing state of the art games you need to follow the 6month to a year upgrade cycle pretty strictly or you will be left out in no time.

nick ...

Blurb is way off

[glorf]

The article isn't about consoles being the new MMORPG platform. The article is about the MMORPG market (PC dominated) being saturated, while the online FPS market (which has a large console demographic) and some other genres are growing.

MMORPGs cost between $10 and $15 per month and require updates on a regular basis to remain interesting. They also require significant time investment. Given the size of the potential customer base, any new MMORPG at this point is going to be cannibalizing the customer base of some other MMORPG. Most people don't have the time or money to play more than one.

XBox Live on the other hand is a flat rate, and has games in genres where you can just pop in and play a little bit without having to worry about being level 126 with 4 billion experience points in order to have fun. That is a market that has a lot more potential growth regardless of console or PC.

Hmmmm...am I missing something?

[jlewell]

I own a very decent PC setup and also an Xbox. Sure, maybe now that I'm older, and the eyesight is going a little, and I'm holding out getting glasses, that can explain the difference I see, but what do you think? On any TV screen or even projection on a wall when I've played Halo, it is fuzzy. I'm sure HDTV will be way better, but for now, between the clarity, graphic detail, ability to upgrade, and amount of control, the PC is still a better experience for me. I agree with the fact that cheaters on the online PC games are maddening, but when you're at a LAN party or playing online with people you know and trust, it is a blast!

Development Costs vs Flexibility

[hol]

Game consoles: Cheaper to develop for
PC Games: Much more flexible

I think one of the key reasons that gaming consoles are (again maybe, whatever) so compelling to game developers is because the hardware is standardized. Sure, you have DirectX on the PeeCee, but this by no means guarantees that the PC it is installed on can support the features. So you need to punt on the PC by allowing dials and levers to adjust graphics and sound options. The CPU figures in too. Then you have several hundred common video card models, a dozen or so sound card drivers, and a few dozen driver combinations for each that may or may not work as advertised.

All of this adds up to one big headache to the game dev.

The disadvantage of the console is that once a game is shipped, you cannot patch it without sending out new media to registered customers. That's expensive. It forces game dev managers to think like movie producers (but software is harder than moving pictures) and results in a static offering.

On the PC, you can make patches available on the web site, allow mods to be developed, and develop a more vibrant user community. Just check the Battlefield 1942 mod, or Half-Life.

Neither will go away. People keep saying the PC sucks as a game platform, and that may be true. But there is stuff you can do with a PC you can't with a console, even with wired ones. For that you have to account for less than with a PC.

Then there is the question of NTSC/PAL screen resolution vs PC screen resolution. Even an old S3 ViRGE card would be fast at that res (just kidding, but point made).

Pick your poison.

Re:Development Costs vs Flexibility

[tepples]

Game consoles: Cheaper to develop for

BS. Console makers control the bootloader. If you're a small firm, console makers don't even want to talk to you.

But for the end user, consoles are much cheaper for single-room multiplayer games, as unlike console games that use either a windowed view or a fighting game style view, most PC games don't support multiple users per terminal. Four players on one PC game: $500x4 (PC) plus $50x4 (game; many PC titles require a separate CD key for each player). Four players on one console game: $300x1 (decent-size TV) plus $100x1 (GameCube) plus $25x3 (extra controllers) plus $50x1 (multiplayer compatible game).

Superior UI?

[LordZardoz]

That is a highly debatable claim.

A superior UI is one that is very easy to figure out, and lets the user do anything that the game can let them do without it being awkward.

Consoles arguably have an edge because using a D-Pad or Joystick is very intuitive. And fewer buttons typically means that the UI is easy to figure out.

PC's have an edge in that for games that require alot of unique inputs or menu interaction, since a Mouse was specifically designed to point and click. (Which is why RTS games play better on a PC).

If you think that a PC offers superior input, it is probably because you tend to prefer the kinds of games that play better using a Mouse.

END COMMUNICATION

Are you sure?

[roystgnr]

The PS2 costs about as much as the graphics card I would have to buy to get comperable performance out of my PC

I don't think this is true anymore, at least not if you're willing to turn your computer resolution down to the low levels your console displays. With Halo, for instance, it looks like you can get 640x480x50fps (i.e. approximately TV resolution with better-than-interlaced-TV framerate) with a GeforceFX 5200 ($55 on pricewatch) or with a Radeon 9200 ($40 on pricewatch). Oh, and you can get both those cards with TV Out at that price, so you can use your larger TV screen if you want.

Re:Are you sure?

[A55M0NKEY]

Cables. Naw. & most people don't know how to turn down their screen resolution let alone know how to purchase a new video card. Also many PC games would reset it to high res for you because they expect to be running under high resolution and were not designed to run at low res.

Consoles don't drive innovation

[UnrefinedLayman]

Consoles don't drive innovation, PCs do. You don't see ATI working hard month after month after month to stay ahead of Nvidia in the console market, do you? They work in the PC market to make better video cards for PCs. Those video cards in turn spur the development industry to make games that take advantage of those faster and faster cards.

Compare, for example, the rate of development for PC hardware versus the hardware development between the Famicom and Super Famicom. We're talking twenty years without a major change. The Xbox has a 733 MHz Celeron for crying out loud -- do you think that during the creation of the Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 the developers were thinking "This is going to lookg great on the Xbox!"? No, they probably weren't.

PC gaming pushes the technology. Console gaming is a slow, controlled process that lets the manufacturers rake in the money with low priced games and lets developers rake in the money with lower requirements for development. Consoles are old technology that produces poor quality. People don't see what the Xbox can do and say "Damn, I wish my PC could do that!" They look at their PC games running at 1600x1200 with FSAA at 75 fps and say "Damn, why the hell would I play this on a console at the rough equivalent of 640x480 with lower quality textures and three year old technology?

Re:XBox 2 is supposed to be more powerful than a P

[Warlock7]

Have you missed the news? They reported that the XBox 2 will have up to five, count 'em five (essentially G5) procs. Other reports have said three, but you still couldn't even buy one of those procs for less that $600. You can't come close to that for $400.

We're also not talking about modding your games here. That's a versatility question, not a power question. On top of which, it sounds like you like to cheat, not just mod. What can you do in FFXI that you can't do on a PS2? You've got keyboards and mice for that console, the graphics look the just about the same and the text on the TV is great. All that and it runs on a PS2 with it's old, inferior, hardware. So, how's the PC experience better for that game?

When the XBox came out it had superior graphics to the PCs at the time too. So, how can you suggest that ATI will give them something out-of-date/not cutting edge?

The hype for the XBox wasn't vapor, so what do you base your assumptions on?

downloading updates

[Doogie5526]

Every MMORPG I've played has had 50% of the gameplay written after it was released... and the games were constantly changing (requiring updates to be downloaded almost daily). While, i can possibly see content downloaded with xbox, it sounds really tough to patch the whole game with a console.

That's a major reason I dont see (at least that genera) merging soon.

other good reasons are lack of cheats for consoles, level playing field of consoles (ya know all the benifits of writing a game for a console)

NetHack...

[Anonymous Coward]

..will never die.

Re:MS's XBox ports to PC

[mdfst13]

The point of the XBox (from Microsoft's perspective) is to make it easy to port console games to the PC. As such, the XBox *helps* IBM/HP/Dell, since it makes PCs more valuable.

Remember that the XBox exists to help Microsoft preserve its OS monopolies. Other game consoles threaten this, as if you play all your games on console, you don't need to run Microsoft Windows rather than Linux/MacOS/whatever to play them. The XBox development environment is designed to be compatible with Microsoft's PC development environments. This makes it easy to port those games back to PC.

windows is the problem

[adamshelley]

So why is it dying? I say the answer is the platform.

Okay, i love linux and i try to get everyone i can interested in it. The problem is convincing gamers. "But linux doesn't support direct X" they always say. They want their games easy to install and easy to play. I tell them "thats what a console is for". But nope, they want prettier, revolutionary games that they see on PC: pushing their hardware limits, giving them an excuse to go spend more money on the latest and greatest.

Now Everyone (sane) knows that windows is a joke. Every version we see released we find more and more problems that are being exploited. A gamer will probably have to reinstall their system multiple times a year. Trying to get their drivers working for all games, all the settings that need to be tweaked. Its becoming way to much of a hassle: backing up saved games, keeping patched o/s images up to date- its tonnes of work!

Not to mention to buy a gaming system you need to spend a fair bit to play these games. To me this doesn't seem worth it.

instead of spending 1500-3000cdn on a gaming system they can spend 550 bucks on a pc and ~300 for a console. Consoles are a set platform game developpers concentrate on making sure their games are more polished instead of hacking in compatibility for all sorts of hardware. Its simply easier and more stable to run games on a console. It also makes it easier to transport games to different location. You can't just bring a PC game to another person's house and play them. There is a CDKEY and you aren't supposed to do that. With consoles, you can easily trade games and play them no problem, no questions asked.

Consoles are what games are suited to most. Thats why PC gaming is struggling. As far as I'm concerned if a company could come out with a very high spec'd console equipment, sold it at a next-to-nothing profit(priced close to existing consoles) but made it easy to develop for, they'd 0wn the industry. If sony did this and made it play the existing game library it'd be hard to catch up to them!.

Re:windows is the problem

[__aamkky7574]

>Okay, i love linux and i try to get everyone i >can interested in it. The problem is convincing >gamers. "But linux doesn't support direct X" >they always say. Actually, I imagine that the first thing they always say is "Sure - what games can I play on it right now"? Linux will become a gaming platform only when there are enough Linux users out there for the main developers to justify developing games on Linux. Period. P.

it's all cycles

[animaal]

I find my use of consoles and PCs is cyclical.

When a console first comes out, it tends to have a games experience on a par with the PC, but more fun on the bigger TV screen. However, about midway through its cycle (cycle=5 years?), the evolution of PC specs means the console games feel outdated.

So at the moment, I'm playing Far Cry and Unreal Tournament on the PC. When the PS3 comes out, I'm sure I'll find myself playing that more.

One thing nobody seems to take into account

[fullmetal55]

PC gaming and Console gaming are two completely different attitudes. It was best summed up in a recent review of the game "Mafia" for PS2, it was a pretty negative review, the some of the greatest gripes being the fact that the game is more story based than action based, and the cars "sucked". (its set in the 1930s... you're not going to have lamborghinis in the 1930s) The truth is there is a distinct different attitudes towards games between the PC gamer crowd and the console gamer crowd there always has, there always will. does it make it wrong? no, it makes it different, and having the choice is necessary. Saying PC gaming is going to die is like saying movies are going to die out because of TV. hasn't happened yet, doubt it will ever happen. There are people who prefer the quick 30 minute entertainment of TV and those who prefer the longer more substantial entertainment of movies...

unambiguous game selection

[dR.fuZZo]

I'm a casual gamer. One thing I like about console games is that its unambiguous what games you can play on your system. In terms of how well the game runs, everyone's starting on the same page on consoles.

I could tell you, for example, that the framerate for multiplayer Neverwinter Nights on the PC is horrible. But, really, that's just because I have an old system without enough pixel-crunching capabilities.

If someone tells me that they played Crimson Skies on Xbox and it played like a dream, I know I can pick up the title and expect the same performance on my Xbox.

If I walked into a Best Buy, I couldn't tell you which new PC games my PC could handle well without reading the fine print on the box (and even then I won't know if my PC can run the game to its fullest.) But I can walk over to the console games and know that, if it's a game for the PS2, I can run it as intended on my PS2 at home.

If it's writting, it must be true --- NOT!

[denis-The-menace]

Seams like some game console MFR just bought a mouth piece that works in a reputable newspaper. They're trying to give the impression that "PC for Gaming" is on the way out to boost the bottom line. Maybe even make some Game Maker exec think twice about porting games to the PC...

What do you think?

Bad for Microsoft?

[Sturm]

As a die-hard PC gamer, I really hope developers don't give up the PC platform in favor of dumbed-down console games. However, it occurs to me that the big loser in the PC to console game migration might be Microsoft. How many times do you hear someone make the comment that they keep a MS based PC around just for games? I currently use a PowerBook and a G4 and even on my x86 boxes, I run Linux. But I always keep a partition on my fastest x86 box installed with Windows, just so I can play x86 only games. So I wonder... Assuming that people are no longer tethered to the x86/Windows platform for gaming, could this be the beginning of the end of the MS stranglehold on the OS market?

Uh, no.

[Inoshiro]

"No one that I know wants to lug a 32"+ television around. 17" LCD, oh yeah. "

You do know that the awesome VGA boxes are cheap for the Xbox? You snag that, a 17" LCD, and the Xbox in an awesome G-Pack game'n'go case (which makes the Xbox more portable than a Shuttle mini-system!), and you're set for a Halo LAN party. Best of all, you don't have to worry about it running horribly on your Xbox. By having an Xbox, you meet the recommended system requirements!

The next next gen consoles...

[mrgreen4242]

The XBox 2, PS3, and whatever Nintendo (if they stay in the home console market at all) systems are going to really change alot of this... There are a few advantages that the PC has over the console which will all but disapear when these come out... 1) Screen resolution - By the time we see the XBox2 and PS3, HDTV will be the standard. By the time the systems are under $200 (and the games start to really get off the ground) people will actually have HDTV capable TVs. This will equal the screen res that MOST games are played at (ya, I like my war3 at 1600x1200, but I can get by with a little less). These systems are being designed with that in mind, so I don't doubt that games will soon become 'optimized' for HDTV monitors. Plus, your average household has a 17" computer monitor, a small, but significant number probably have 19" (and 15" for that matter). Your average HDTV has gotta be 27". Lets face it, size matters. Esp. when added with HDTV resolution. 2) Controller input - XBox already uses a modified USB interface, anf I expect other systems to follow suit with USB2.0 based inputs. Reason's are simple: they can make make cross platform devices relitively simply, keeping costs down. By changing the actual 'plug' shape and wiring patterns it will keep your average console gamer from using the Xbox2 controller in his PS#, but the 'guts' could be basically the same, meaning cheap construction. Also, it looks like MS is removing the HD from thier system, and Sony is having good success in selling an external one. However, as games become more advanced (FFXI online, Fable, etc), you will require an large non-volitile storage system. So, do like sony and sell a HD seperately, keeping system costs down, and making some actual profit on 'accessories' for the latest game. Using USB2 will let them easily adapt existing, cheap (and getting cheaper all the time) technology to do this. 2a) Back to controllers - I seriously am expecting the XBox2 to be bundled with 1 controller and a kkeyb/mouse combo. Maybe not the 'base' system, but a Special Edition or something like that at least. (At launch why not have a $299 regular system - the console and a controller, nothing else, and a 'special limited time' $399 bundle with the addition of a game, and a keyb/mouse? it's sell liek mad). Just about all the systems have a keyb/mouse kit available, and I think that we will see more of these in the future. When we do, FPS will bcome much better for console, and RTS games will make thier way into the scene in force. Once the console catches up in these areas, and added to it the already significant list of advantages (no install worries, garaunteed to work, better price/performance) it's going to be a no brainer. In fact, I am looking forward to it. Next year I can ditch my PC, get a nice new iMac, a PS3 or XBox2, and have the best of everything. It'll be nice to, especially since the only reason I ever upgrade my PC is to play the newest games, I'll prolly be able to keep my iMac for 4-5 years and just upgrade my console as needed.

Re:The next next gen consoles...

[mrgreen4242]

Doh, I didnt change to 'plain ole text' mode so it all rand together.

Ignore the babbling fromt he crazy man :(

What down economy

[nuggz]

What are you talking about, the economy is in fine shape.
Sure we're not in the bubble years with money for any stupid idea, and jobs everywhere.
But companies are making and selling products, unemployment is at slightly lower then historical levels.
By any reasonable measure everything is just fine, just compared to the blast that we had over the past few years, it feels a little tight right now.

Like what

[nuggz]

I'm finding that there are fewer and fewer good strategy games available.
Most have mindnumbingly dumb AI.
Once you get past the point where they vastly overpower you, they become quite easy.

resolutions?

[happyfrogcow]

sorry, but today the resolution and level of detail on a computer monitor is so much more pretty than a television. will HDTV even compare to a computer running a game at 1280x1024 or higher? thats not rhetorical, i'm really wondering.

the only bonus I see for console gaming is that you sit on a couch or sofa instead of an office chair.

pc games withering at Best Buy

[dmh20002]

you can tell that PC games are withering by going to Best Buy. The PC games used to be on several racks and changed all the time. Now they are down to one rack and its pretty much the same every week. a bunch of standard games and nothing new. the console game section is always expanding.
in fact, the PC game rack is now about the same size as the full Macintosh software rack, which is not a good sign.

Re:pc games withering at Best Buy

[coughman]

In my local Game Stop (NYC) they even moved most of the pc games away to make space for console games. Now the pc games are sitting high up, on the top of a shelf behind the cashier counter. So sad.

Random stupidity...

[JMZero]

You start off by saying:

windows is the problem

Then you ignore that for pretty much the rest of your post and talk about machine cost and non-uniform hardware.

As far as I'm concerned if a company could come out with a very high spec'd console equipment, sold it at a next-to-nothing profit(priced close to existing consoles) but made it easy to develop for, they'd 0wn the industry

What a frickin' great idea! So what you're saying is that if someone comes out with a better product and price it cheaper, they'll sell lots. That's great. Too bad those silly guys in the industry haven't thought of this.

Every version we see released we find more and more problems that are being exploited. A gamer will probably have to reinstall their system multiple times a year. Trying to get their drivers working for all games, all the settings that need to be tweaked.

Actually, every version of Windows sees less and less problems - really. Compare Windows 95 to Windows XP. Or the tweaks required to play a game under XP to the ones required under DOS 5. It gets better.

I'm not a big PC gamer (I like my Gamecube), but I play a little on my development machine. It just really doesn't give me any problems. I've been running the same machine for a while now, and the only reinstall I've done in years was moving from 2000 to XP - and it was pretty painless.

A lot of people seem to have these old ideas that Windows is still crashing all the time and has driver problems. It really just doesn't. It did at one time. Windows 95 was really an abomination. Windows XP is really pretty stable.

You can't just bring a PC game to another person's house and play them. There is a CDKEY and you aren't supposed to do that

Do you actually play many PC games? CDKeys are actually fairly rare. PC games could run off of the CD without an install if that's what gamers were clamoring for. They apparently aren't. Instead, they want the short load times of having content on the hard disk.

PC games and console games will co-exist for at least a while longer. There's games suited to each, and both options make sense for different people. Just because PC gaming isn't for you doesn't mean it's doomed.

Re:Random stupidity...

[adamshelley]

Allow me to back myself up

>Then you ignore that for pretty much the rest of your post and talk about machine cost and non-uniform hardware.

Windows is the problem because of its instabilities that are non-gaming related unless you have a completely separate box for gaming.

>What a frickin' great idea! So what you're saying is that if someone comes out with a better product and price it cheaper, they'll sell lots. That's great. Too bad those silly guys in the industry haven't thought of this.

My point was that consoles can't handle some of the PC games because of limitted hardware. If they over spec'd it a bit more ie (more than 32MB of ram, more than 8GB harddrive) developpers whould have a lot less hoops to jump through. Now selling this cheap is going to be hard but my point is that it'll be worth it because of the sales in games. This is more of a guess at what is going to happen next in the industry.

>A lot of people seem to have these old ideas that Windows is still crashing all the time and has driver problems. It really just doesn't. It did at one time. Windows 95 was really an abomination. Windows XP is really pretty stable.

You are a fool with no real life experience.

>Do you actually play many PC games? CDKeys are actually fairly rare. PC games could run off of the CD without an install if that's what gamers were clamoring for. They apparently aren't. Instead, they want the short load times of having content on the hard disk.
>PC games and console games will co-exist for at least a while longer. There's games suited to each, and both options make sense for different people. Just because PC gaming isn't for you doesn't mean it's doomed.

It may exist for a while but my prediction is because of the instability of PC(windows)'s its gonna loose to stability in consoles. The tech is there for a company to come out with a console that will match PC gaming ie network play, high end graphics. PC tech is going to plateau and when it does console will have the advantage of having the same/consistant tech and not running windows.

connect the dots la la la

Tactical Mistakes By Games Companies

[pandrijeczko]

I have no doubt in my mind that PC game development is slowing as games companies move more and more over to consoles. There's several reasons for this:

1. Sheer number of titles / emulation: it's probably a safe assumption to make that the kids & young adults generally go for the consoles while the parents & older ones use PCs for gaming. Therefore, it's probably safe to assume that the older lot (myself included) enjoy the emulation scene and reloading up old games - in turn, we have less free time for new games and buy less of them. Therefore there's less and less profit for the games companies in PC Games.

2. Game modding: great for the general public to extend the life of favourite games by downloading free mods for Half-Life, Quake, etc. but ultimately a tactical mistake by the games companies. After all, I'm still playing various Half-Life mods several years after its original release meaning, again, I've bought and played very few new games.

3. Game quality: console releases seem to be much better thought out than PC game releases. Console games tend to be more formulaic - beat-em-ups, sports & racing games, etc - but also seem to be of a consistently better quality. In my experience, maybe 10% of all the PC game releases are of a reasonable standard while only a handful each year are classifiable as "classics". The games companies have only themselves to blame for this - magazine and Internet review sites mean the general public can be a lot more selective with their purchases.

4. Network gaming: modding aside, it's possible to buy a first-person shooter on the PC and finish it in about a day's worth of play to be ready for the next game. Network gaming, although great for us players, extends the usable life of titles to be much longer meaning that, again, we buy less new games. This is why the gaming companies are obviously moving to a model of server subscriptions to keep the money coming in. But ultimately it'll result in less, longer-life titles being released.

From a personal perspective, I'm getting older and getting slightly bored with the modern games scene anyway - I'm now really only looking forward to Doom3 and Half-Life.

And while I'm pretty comfortable on the "disposable income" front, I'm simply tired of with the endless cycle of hardware upgrades that seem to be a requirement every 6 months or so in the PC gaming scene.

I really miss the 8-bit and 16-bit days when games developers were forced to push the hardware further and further to create better and better games rather than simply expecting us to upgrade all of the time.

The classic days of gaming are long dead...

Re:Tactical Mistakes By Games Companies

[NotReallyApathetic]

I have to disagree. While it is true that my local EB has less shelf space devoted to games these days, it seems that quality titles are appearing with greater and greater frequency. There are many quality franchises, Warcraft, Unreal Tournament, Doom, Half-Life, Age of Empires, Grand Theft Auto, and Baldur's Gate just to name a few. Plus, there are fantastic new games coming out all of the time. Far Cry, Rise of Nations, Freedom Force, Ghost Master, and many others all bode very well for a sustainable PC gaming realm for many years to come. Innovation in PC gmes is alive and well, and thriving with each burst of new technology.

I also disagree with the assertion that modding is detrimental to game companies. After all, if you have spent the last couple of years playing Half Life mods and are now eagerly anticipating Half Life 2, then Valve has done there job very well.

As far as console games being better thought out than PC counterparts, my experience has largely been that the best thought out console games are those that were PC games first, with the exception of some of the Final Fantacy and Metal Gear Solid titles, and a few others. Consoles are having the effect of infusing those companies smart enough to port their PC games with large amounts of capital with which to make even better PC games.

Network and Internet-based gaming is going to be the wave that we surf into the future. MMORPGs are evolving at a rapid pace, and deathmatching has a huge amount of popularity. Far from preventing people from purchasing, these trends are causing people to rush out and best the next great thing on a regular basis. PC game budgets may be skyrocketing, but so are revenues. With the emerging model of web-based distribution that Valve is pioneering with Steam, PC games are poised to be easier to buy and play than ever.

I am 33 years old. I am not sure whether that makes me a young adult or an older one, but I still love my PC games and continually find console games (my son has an Xbox and PS) to be lacking in intellectual stimulation. I consider PC gaming to be a hobby of mine. Cracking open a case to upgrade my video card isn't a chore, it is a giddy time of wonder for me. I eagerly load old games to see what they look like compared to past experience.

Bottom line - I don't see the end of PC-based gaming anywhere on the horizon. The future looks pretty golden from here.

Re:Tactical Mistakes By Games Companies

[Minna Kirai]

Therefore, it's probably safe to assume that the older lot (myself included) enjoy the emulation scene

Interesting that the prime emphasis of your first reason is something that's completely illegal.

There is, in fact, an emulation scene for consoles. Actually two scenes. There are self-booting CDs you can download which run mame+snes+whatever and have 500 roms on them. And there are actually fully legal discs from the real publisher (usually with only 16 classic games or so)

(Personally, I believe that copyrights should expire in 14 years, as the US first intended, so that classic games would be public-domain by now. Pac-man should be as free as Chess)

ultimately a tactical mistake by the games companies.

No, Halflife was a tactical marketplace success. Because of the popularity of its mods, Valve was able to continue selling basically the same game for full $39 price for five years. That's an enormous profit that continued long past the time most games would be $2.99 in the bargain bin.

Other moddable games had more questionable results. Battlefield 1942 has continued to sell heavily at $29 thanks to the Desert Combat mod. But unlike HalfLife, the publishers have released a sequel by now. The new Battlefield Vietnam is $39, and faces severe competition from BF1942 (which is not only a cheaper way to get similar gameplay, but is much less buggy)

It looks like moddability is only a safe moneymaker if if your company expects to have a multiyear spacing between games of the same genre. That'll give enough time for new engine development to give the sequel features the mods can't approach. (HalfLife to HL2 was 1998-2004, but BF1942 to BFV was just 2002-2004. Not enough of a wait)

Re:Tactical Mistakes By Games Companies

[Rallion]

To add a bit to the 'Half-Life was good for Valve' argument: How many of their games have you not bought because you were still playing Half-Life? I bet I know the answer!

Re:Tactical Mistakes By Games Companies

[Minna Kirai]

How many of their games have you not bought because you were still playing Half-Life? I bet I know the answer!

Zero, because Valve hasn't released any other games. (That's what I meant by a "multiyear spacing" between games)

Credit cards are objects

[ThousandStars]

Credit Cards are Evil

Objects are not inherently good or evil; they can be used by people toward either end. People who use their credit cards to pile up debt and ruin their financial standing may hurt themselves in the long term, but that doesn't make the credit (and remember that the card is merely a manifestation of the ephemeral idea of credit) itself evil.

Not necessarily more work

[Azureflare]

It's a matter of choosing the right tools and planning ahead. SDL comes to mind here. It is possible to start out with crossplatform compatibility in mind. It may not be as easy as just creating for Windows, but AFAIK it's not terribly difficult if you plan for it.

And please, for the love of god, don't use directx. OpenGL all the way baby!

Some replies

[Anonymous Coward]

Starcraft was available for N64, but I was indignant about it at the time. I couldn't conceive how it would be fun without having keyboard hotkeys, nor how you could move the cursor around fast enough for the 1337 micro.

There was one incredibly fun FPS for N64, and that was James Bond: Goldeneye. Both single- and multi- player was great.

Can you tell I'm not too hip on the console scene? All my examples involve Nintendo 64. Sorry.

And yes, there are no *bands on the consoles.

COST

[g0bshiTe]

Is what it comes down to.
Anyone here own a Nintendo? How bout Super NES? Or N64? Sega? Sega Genisis? Sega CD?

The point is consoles are evolving yes, but ocnsumers will tire of every two or three years forking out between $200 and $400 for the newest consoles.
That was the main attraction for a PC, in my case. When you can't run a game simply upgrade a component in your box. Every 5 or 6 years upgrade the box itself. However, for the last 5 years I have been running an AMD 350 megahert machine and playing some, not all mind you, some newer games.
In an unstable economy, you can grab the fast buck, or stay in for the long haul.
$200 - $400 a whack for a console? I think not. I would rather lay that money down for the equivalent in games for my PC.

Indeed

[JMZero]

I'd love to do the Mario Kart LAN thing. I even know enough people with cubes and discs. I just can't pay $50*4 for the broadband adapters I'll never use again.

Re:Indeed

[adamshelley]

i apologize for calling you a fool with no real life experience but yes XP has problems.

I don't want this to be a flame fest but I do (strongly) think that if there were a sdk as good as direct X (which you didn't have to pay an arm and a leg to use) for another platform (where that be the next gen consoles, linux, whatever) it could easily take its place a the market leader.

Re: Keyboard

[Venner]

Not to mention that many developers use far too many keyboard commands and the interface gets so complicated the game's a bear to play. There is something to be said for simpler designs on user interfaces to games.

Interesting that you should say that. As someone who grew up with DOS and uses the linux console extensively, I still subconciously consider the mouse a secondary input device. Even under Windows, I tend to use the keyboard a lot to get around. ctrl-esc/win_key + r then type a command, etc. The mouse is invaluable for graphics editing (or for quickly setting focus under any application) and other uses (post-Doom FPSes which have free-look, etc.)

Civilization is by far my favorite computer game, in almost every incarnation of it. (There has continuously been an install of one of them on my hard drive since about 1990-91.) The notable exception was the Call to Power sub-series. I was more or less appalled at how much one needed to use the mouse and hated playing the game.

So to each one's own :-)

Re:Uh, no. - note: gamepad

[bliSSter138]

The second that I can use a standard USB keyboard and mouse combo, I will consider halo on the Xbox as an alternative.

It's not that I'm an old-school, PC-hardcore, moreover, it's a physical limitation; the amount of flexibility and mobilty that exists in your fingers are far less than what is comparably possible via keyboard and mouse. FPS' suck on consoles. Again, just MHO, but there are a grand chunk of gamers who agree with me on this point.

Gamepads are great for console-style games. Anyone remember the debacles that were Command and Conquer or Starcraft on the N64?

PC games are a different type of animal - still best suited for key/mouse input. Until then, Halo will be a shadow of what it could have been - as will Halo2. The dev team killed it when they made it an FPS. Now it's just another shooter.

Re:Us vs Them!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft also makes Mac products.

What's your point?

Mods is all I have to say

[mustrum_ridcully]

Mods are about the only reason I stick with the good ol' PC, the value they add to a game shouldn't be underestimate. Take counter strike for example or the plethora of mods for battlefield 1942 or even the multiplayer mod for GTA:VC.

So OK the PS2 may of had GTA:VC first but I can play it against my friends or download mods to give me new weapons, cars etc...

A few more...

[Anonymous Coward]

# ... So far only games really utilize the huge amount of space available on a DVD...

And MOVIES.

# The PS2 costs about as much as the graphics card I would have to buy to get comperable performance out of my PC

See my uncle's post above.

# My TV screen is bigger than my computer screen. For theatrical games, 27 inches is nice, even if the resolution sucks. Resolution isn't as important as size unless there is alot of text and menus. Inability to display text forces game designers to largely eschew them which lets you get more 'into' the game.

Well, some people likes games where they have to think, and sometimes thinking involves apprehending text. It's nice to have the options. Also, a computer is useful for so much more than a console, including reading text (online, too).

# I can play a game while someone else uses the computer or vice versa. Why get that video card for the same price as a game system when you'd just have to share?

Run Linux and set up a fucking dumb terminal.

# Console games are Bugfree (TM). They are. I have maybe found 1 or 2 MINOR bugs in console games over the years. Every third PC game I buy must be returned to WAL*MART because it won't install correctly on my computer.

Stop buying your games at WAL*MART and this is likely to be taken care of. DUH! Wal mart sucks.
Also, when there is a buggy computer game, guess what? They can release a patch! Good luck trying to patch the code on the DVD.

# The controllers are the best designed ever.

Yeah, except for the keyboard and mouse, which have much more fine-grained input.

Re:A few more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey you, text, you're under arrest!

Text apprehended.

one other diff

[Anonymous Coward]

PC pro:
Anyone can make a game for it

Console con:
Pay though the nose for the right do make a game

Re:MS's XBox ports to PC

[RatBastard]

The point of the XBox (from Microsoft's perspective) is to make it easy to port console games to the PC.

I keep hearing that, but I'm not seeing the evidence to back it up. The number of XBox games ported to Windows is about the same as PS2 games ported to Windows.

That isn't the point of the XBox at all. The XBox has two points: 1: To muscle into a market they had not had a presense in before and; 2: as a testbed for their Secure Computer Platform.

Consoles means less freedom

[crotherm]

PC online playing does not cost money just to connect, other than your ISP. I can go home and jump on hundreds of servers at no extra cost.

Also, many PC games are released with the tools to make your own game mods. Look at NeverWinterNights and UT2004. Both come with full mod development tool set. You think MS/Sony/Whoever will want the users to create their own games that they donm't get a slice of? Hardly....

The future is shovelware

[retro128]

I doubt PC gaming will die out. One of the major reasons is that developers will take money from wherever they can. Now that I've been hearing about this unified game development platform Microsoft cooked up, I think game developers will write the software once and release it both XBOX and PC platforms. As far as Playstation goes, I don't know how easy it is to port a game from the PC/Xbox to Playstation, but it seems to be easy enough where I've seen some games being released on all three platforms at the same time.

The other reason why I believe PC gaming is here to stay is because of the controls and multiplayer play. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the WASD/mouse configuration. With that, it's really easy to whip around a 180 and blast whoever's tailing you. Anyone ever tried to do this with a D-Pad on a console contoller? It's called "Hang on, I'll be with you in a second." Of course, on a console that's usually against a computer opponent, unless you happen to be paying $10/mo for the privilege of playing online with someone. And that brings me to my next point...LANs. Anyone ever heard of someone doing a big LAN party using Xbox/Playstations? Neither have I. And on Xbox, you get 4 players per console, all of whom can see each others' screens because it's split into four tiny quads. Then pair that with the fact that you can only have 4 Xboxes hooked up in the same game, which means you get a maximum of 16 players per game, all of whom are playing on what would probably be less than the equivalent resolution on 320x200 in one small corner of a crappy color TV.

Now ask anyone who has ever participated in a 64-player deathfest why he thinks PC gaming will die out.

Credit cards are objects-Fee fire.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fees and other such games that credit card companies play say otherwise.

Consoles have already overthrown PCs

[c0d3h4x0r]

Is the console destined for superiority, or will the ubiquitous need and superior user input of the PC keep it as a viable game platform?

The majority of video gamers have always generally preferred consoles over PCs for two simple reasons: less hassle, less money. You plug it in, turn it on, and it just works. No software to install, drivers to fuck with, or BIOSes to flash. And a console still costs less than a 3rd of what a gaming PC costs. These are the reasons why most gamers bought NES or PS2 rather than C64 or PC.

A minority of the gaming public has traditionally preferred PC gaming because of two advantages: advanced computing capabilities and the keyboard/mouse methods of input. But today's consoles are on the verge of eliminating those two gaps. PS2 and XBOX both support the ability to connect keyboards, mice, and other unique input devices, and they are both plenty powerful enough to appear as good as most people's PCs, but at a much cheaper price (because the console can be subsidized by the sale of games, which is something a business can't do with PCs).

All that the consoles need to do is provide some add-on module that lets you get SVGA or HDTV output for high-res viewing (supported by all games on the console, not just special games that support it as a hack), and to let gamers reconfigure any game to use any combination of input devices that are supported by the system (pad/joystick/keyboard/mouse/racing wheel/whatever), and then a console becomes a perfectly reasonable substitute for your typical gaming PC.

So at this point the only limitation is the demographics choices being made by console manufacturers, not the technology itself.

Re:Consoles have already overthrown PCs

[Anonymous Coward]

People keep going on about the costs of PC's, Entry level machines get cheaper month by month, 'entry level' used to cost a grand or more where you can get a fully loaded machine with everything a normal person would need for $500 or less. Very few people in this world insist on running the top end $5000 machines, those are nothing but the ferrari's of PC's. While the majority use machines generally as cheap as they can get them.

Some games are better on PC

[Anonymous Coward]

You just can't play a good sim management "god" game on anything but a PC. I'm referring to games like Sim City, Civilization, Pharoah, Roller Coaster Tycoon, Sim Golf... etc, etc.

The problem is, that class of game is kind of over-saturated and really lacking in anything new.

So wither away, PC...

Been there, done that.

[RatBastard]

In the 16 years I've spent playing games on the PC environment (that is, IBM PCs and their decendants, older non-upgradable systems didn't have these issues) I've had to deal with the following issues:

• New games requiring RAM upgrades.
• Existing games crapping out because of said RAM upgrade (I kid you not).
• New games not compatible with the mix of Extended/Expanded RAM that everything else plays nice with.
• Games crapping out due to a hardware upgrade, like a video card or sound card.
• New games needing the newest video card drivers and those new drivers killing off older games.
• Games malfunctioning due to an OS upgrade.
• Games failing because of DLLs brought in from non-gaming applications.
• Games becoming unplayable when the system is upgraded because said games lack internal speed controls (anyone ever try to play "Wing Cpmmander" on a Pentium 133?).

Every game I have for my three consoles (PSOne, DreamCast, XBox) still works (save for the disc I rolled my chair over and snapped, but that's not Sony's fault). Most of my PC games from the PSOne era no longer work on the beast of a computer I have.

I've given up on PC games (with the minor exception of some FPS games and those cute little Flash/Java games you play in a web browser) because I'm sick of the BS keeping my game system able to play the greatest number of games possible.

What down economy-Rollercoaster ride.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well now that's debatable.

Yes there are oasis, but you have to look at the big picture.

A rose by any other name, but roses have thorns (look at the profile for a doctor).

Re: Keyboard

[Maestro4k]

• Interesting that you should say that. As someone who grew up with DOS and uses the linux console extensively, I still subconciously consider the mouse a secondary input device. Even under Windows, I tend to use the keyboard a lot to get around. ctrl-esc/win_key + r then type a command, etc. The mouse is invaluable for graphics editing (or for quickly setting focus under any application) and other uses (post-Doom FPSes which have free-look, etc.)

Curously enough I prefer keyboard/command-line interaction with my OS's, but I don't particularly like a game that makes me memorize so many keyboard commands that it feels like I'm studying for a test. :) I think flight-simulators are probably the best example of this, but then again that's an awfully complex thing to simulate, so it's a bit understandable.

The death of PC games

[aztektum]

PC games aren't going anywhere until PC's as we know them die.

I can't wait for the day when PC's and consoles cease to exist and I just have one Ubercomputer in my basement that can create movie quality grafx in real time and allows me to buy the best games w/o having to play them on a specific platform.

Then all I have on my desk is an awesome 42" OLED screen, mouse, keyboard (or whatever the input device standard is by ten) and a port that I can plug my 200GB flash drive into for transporting files.

Ahh I can dream can't I?

Why I love my PS2-HDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not that your point is invalid, a PS2 is the cheapest alternative. The quoted statement was just a bit much. The reasons the top PC card cost so much is that they're built to run games with WAY more details than PS2 games at 1600X1200 with 60+ frames per second."

And when HDTV becomes more common this will change.

Bah.

[JMZero]

You are a fool with no real life experience.

Screw off. I've been developing software for a long time, and I know more about PC's, Windows, and probably even Linux than you ever will. Do you know what it was like to setup DMA on an original Sound Blaster? Do you remember what changed when going to the odd Pro version with the FM synthesizer from the SB16? How about how the sprite buffer works on a Commodore 64?

Of course you don't, so shut your idiot mouth when talking to those older, more experienced, and smarter than you.

Looking over your comments, you're a boring Linux fanboy who doesn't know dick - and routinely gets modded into oblivion for his stupidity. This is quite the accomplishment for a Linux fanboy on Slashdot.

Re:Bah.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that this script may help solve some hardware problems.

debug
-fcs:200 400 0
-acs:100
mov ax, 0
mov ax, cx
out 70, al
mov ax, 0
out 71,al
inc cx
cmp cx,100
jb 103
mov ax,302
mov bx,200
mov cx,1
mov dx,80
int 13
int 20

-g
-q

Re:Bah.

[gatkinso]

You are pretty much right. XP is pretty stable I don't have many problems with it - throw on a decent X server and PuTTy and there is no reason to have a Linux box on your desk (I write cross platform apps for a living).... ...unless you want a Linux box on your desk that is.

(Caveat: Office is, and always will be, an abomination.)

Yes they do!

[RatBastard]

It's The Law!

1. If you like console games you have to hate PC games.
2. If you like NVidia you must hate ATI.
3. If you like SoundBlaster you have to hate Gravis Ultra Sound.
4. If you like Linux you are compelled to loathe "Windoze".
5. If you like PCs are you must hate Macs.
6. If you like Amiga's you must hate everything else.
7. If you lile Emacs you must kill the vi heratics.
8. If you like Ford you must hate Chevy.
9. If you drink Pepsi you must hate Coke.
10. If you like ...

No basis for article

[ManoMarks]

Essentially, the article references 2 on-line worlds that have been scrapped this year as evidence that the PC market is in trouble. But both those on-line worlds sound like they might have sucked anyway. One is an attempt to revive an old franchise, Myst, which while a fabulous game in itself, has somewhat faded from consciousness, and the other is by Microsoft. Maybe the games were just not marketable, or there were significant problems with them. But no, it has to be about consoles destroying PC gaming, which BTW, they've been threatening to do for how long now?

Genres

[tepples]

the amount of flexibility and mobilty that exists in your fingers are far less than what is comparably possible via keyboard and mouse.

Keyboard and mouse may work better than a gamepad for some players on some game genres, but do you think you could play Super Mario Bros. or Soul Calibur II or Tetris efficiently using a keyboard and mouse?

Re:Genres

[Minna Kirai]

Super Mario Bros. or Soul Calibur II or Tetris efficiently using a keyboard

Yes! (Ignore the mouse though, it won't help)

Tetris was originally written for keyboard, and still works great. SMB had 6 input buttons, which is easily handled on a keyboard (if you had mentioned one of the post-NES sequels, then it'd have needed more buttons and the PC situation would be worse)

SC2 is more difficult. It's 4 generations after SMB, so it has a vastly broader use of controls. But yet, if the programmers wished, they could allow you adequate control by mapping the 40 available PC keys to different combat moves.

However, that would destroy the funness of the game. Once it became adequate it would already be too easy, since a huge chunk of the gameplay is focused on repeating painfully memorized strings to invoke the best attacks.

a multimedia center

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, if you want to know what kind of platform you'll be playing on in the long term then the question you need to answer is will computing power will be distributed-specialzed or centralized-generic.
Everyone can have his opinion -as both have pros and cons-.
But personnaly i'd like to have some kind of "home server" that can manage every numeric thing in the house, spreading content to any kind of output/input devices.

quake and games like quake (fps)

[Anonymous Coward]

kick ass on the computer and no console EVEN REMOTELY COMPARES.

I just don't get consoles.

[Mongo222]

Sure thier cheap, and simple, and they are all identicle so the developer doesn't have to worry about coding for machine differences. But they just aren't any fun. The controllers suck, I'll never be able to get used to a game pad. Just two many controls packed into too small a space. The Display sucks, and until they offer a console box with a biult in SVGA/LCD port I don't see that changing. HDTV output will help some, but it's still very limited when compared to a computer monitor. The lack of a keybaord, and moue, automaticly make the developers have to choose limited and cumbersom user interface designs. You almost never see console games that can take advantage of a keyboard and mouse, because so few users have them that no developers bother to add code to support them. Way back when I bought a Sega Genisis, and I sold it after a couple of months because PC's just played more and better games, and the interface was better. I then saw the overwhelming popularity of the PS1, so I got one of those. I never did find a game for it that I actually played all the way through. They graphics just can't touch a PC. Again, game pads.... just say no. No real local storage to speak of, those memory chips are nothing compared to a HD. I even fell for it one more time, and bought a PS2. Same reason... Oh my god, the PC games are dieing! The only good games will be for the consoles! Well I'm now to the point where the only thing I use my PS2 for is a backup DVD player. I must admit that I finally found two games for the plateform that I actually like, actually two series of gamse I like. The Solid Snake line, and the Grand Theft Auto series. I played GTA2 on the PS2 and liked it.... but when Vice City came out, I bought it for the PC. I have faster loading, better graphics, more useable controlls, and an over all beter gaming experience. So I guess if all the pudents are correct in saying that PC games are over, that I'll just have to be happy with the existing games that are out. It's never happened before though, and I don't think anyone honestly belives it will happen this time. But bottom line. I tried console gaming. Repeatedly. I don't get it. I don't like it, and I'm not going to waste money on a console again. It's more fun to upgrade my PC anyway.

Mac?

[tepples]

Most households are connected to the internet nowadays, implying that they own a PC.

Try running 99.44 percent of computer games from the shelves of Best Buy on a Macintosh computer. Some people "are connected to the Internet" through a Mac and do not "own a PC" based on an Intel instruction set architecture.

How many people are still playing console games from 10 years ago?

Ever heard of FCE Ultra?

Re:Mac?

[brucmack]

Since Mac has what, 5% of the market give or take, it implies that the average net-connected household has a PC.

Besides which, it's silly that the term "PC" doesn't include Macs anyway. In my view, PC means a privately owned computer, nothing more.

Re:Mac?

[obeythefist]

I was under the impression that x86 emulation has never been better on the Mac. Wasn't there an article about someone booting WinXP on a Mac the other day?

Unfortunately for the parent, even though I'm not a mac fan myself, you have to remember, Macs are computers, not consoles (in the functional sense), and hence they're capable of some extraordinary things.

Re:Mac?

[tepples]

I was under the impression that x86 emulation has never been better on the Mac.

With RealPC/SoftWindows gone and with a JIT engine for Bochs nowhere in sight, Microsoft holds an apparent monopoly on x86 JIT emulation under Mac OS X and could EOL Virtual PC (and Office for Mac) at any time should Apple not play along with Microsoft's demands.

Macs are ... capable of some extraordinary things.

Not if publishers of proprietary "extraordinary things" continue to discontinue them.

It's troubling...

[Blic]

To be honest, I've always thought of PC and Console gaming as two fairly separate things that each had their place and unique styles. But I'm disturbed by the extent to which PC gaming is being shaped by console gaming these days.

Using a recent example, Deus Ex was a great PC game. Its sequel was a disaster - it was obviously designed with a console's limitations in mind and the PC version was saddled with a console interface and dumbed down gameplay.

The recent Splinter Cell demo was a similar experience - a giant UI taking up too much of the screen because it's designed for a TV.

And of course Halo, I couldn't believe how frustrating it was trying to play that game with a controller instead of keyboard and mouse. I haven't even tried the PC port, I played it on a friend's XBox.

It's frustrating, because so much development that is going on today targets multiple plaforms (specifically EA and Ubisoft) and because all the consoles pale compared to a current PC in terms of power and flexibility, we have this rash of dumbed down games targeted to the least common denominator.

But maybe it's just this long drought that PC gaming has had. Maybe HL2 and WoW can shake things up a bit... =)

Which best buy is that?

[Mongo222]

The ones near me still have three rows of PC's games, and one row of PS2 games, and one of Xbox.

:Raises hand: That's me!

[catphile]

Between looking for jobs, I play unreal tournament. Throw rocks if you will, but I refuse to live my life under a constant cloud of dreariness simply because I don't have enough money.

HDTV and Xbox

[Anonymous Coward]

For any but the most complicated of games, I will NOT go back to the PC.

I've been playing Xbox on my widescreen HDTV using component inputs for a long time now. The huge screen with great graphics and full room dolby digital 5.1 and comfort of the couch is a MUCH more entertaining enviroment than my desk and PC.

Re:HDTV and Xbox

[Anonymous Coward]

How about running your PC to your Widescreen HDTV using component video? Now that would be my ultimate gaming setup. mmmmm.... PC games on a 65" plasma....

Re:HDTV and Xbox

[gatkinso]

He does have his PC connected to his HDTV... it just says XBox on the front.

LucasArts ruined x-wing vs tie fighter

[geekee]

Back when LucasArts focused on PC games with x-wing vs. tie fighter, the added ability to adjust parameters on the keyboard made the game a lot more interesting. Since they have focused on console games, however, it seems the features have been stripped out to make the new games work with the simpler controller of console games. I've been disappointed with the Rougue squadon game demos and beyond, and haven't bought a space shooter since x-wing alliance.

Exaaactly...

[sterno]

Some games are really well suited to the console setup and some are really well suited to playing on a PC. I would never want to play an FPS or strategy game on a console because a mouse is the best input for them. I'd also not want to play a fighting game like Mortal Kombat on a PC, especially if I'm going to have a few friends over to join in.

RPG games certainly work well on a console because the inputs required aren't quite as precise or time critical. Playing a twitchy FPS on a game pad is an excercise in frustration. Unless they start building keyboard and mouse platforms into couches, some games are always going to be better on a PC.

SNES Civilization

[JWhitlock]

right here.

All your games could be played on a console if you just added a keyboard. None are super graphics intensive, If MMORPG become popular, wireless keyboards may become standard on consoles, and then the only "intellegent" part of playing on a PC will be finding a free server to download the patch from.

Wrong.

[oGMo]

The majority of the games are targetted towards 15-18 yr. olds who think they are 25. Games requiring deep thinking and an attention span (Final Fantasy has little strategic/tactical depth) rarely see the light of day on a console that is not the GBA (compare the GBA's strategy titles to those on the PS2).

Erm, you want strategy or tactical depth? Try the following console games:

Let's start with PSX:

• Arc the Lad 1, 2
• Final Fantasy Tactics
• Front Mission 3
• Metal Gear Solid
• Ogre Tactics
• Sayuki: The Journey West
• Vagrant Story
• Vandal Hearts

Those are the ones I have (besides Ogre Tactics). I could throw some puzzle/action/strategy games in besides MGS (like Alundra, Silent Hill, even Gran Turismo), but I won't bother. Now for PS2, and what the hell, I'll throw in the action or puzzle ones this time:

• Dynasty Tactics 1, 2
• Disgaea
• Escape from Monkey Island
• Everblue 2
• Fatal Frame 1, 2
• Ico
• Metal Gear Solid 2
• Romance of the Three Kingdoms
• Shadow of Destiny
• Silent Hill 2, 3
• Unlimited SAGA
• Wizardry

These are just the ones I have or can think of off the top of my head. Final Fantasy (the main series, at least), while not requiring a lot of deep thought, is also not the only RPG or game on the console. The strategy games for consoles blow away the simple RTS's I've seen for the PC, in depth, fun factor, and storyline.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've played a number of them and wouldn't consdier any of them to be above the "kiddie" strategy games I used to play on the NES. Take a look at HPS Sims, Battefront, or Matrix games for some serious strategy games.

What does the developer prefer?

[prozac79]

I worked for a brief period of time at a game company. While there I realized that developers prefer to write games for consols because they have pretty standard libraries and specifications. They don't like hacking all their code to get it to work with various graphics cards and other computer configurations. Intead, they would rather want to use that time to tweak their code to get maximum performance on a specific set of hardware. I used to be a PC gamer, but now most of my games are played on the Xbox. It creates a good separation between game time and work time.

Re:What does the developer prefer?

[cr0sh]

You make a good point, but the bad thing about consoles is that it costs so much to purchase development tools/hardware if you want to develop for them. This makes it pretty much impossible for anyone other than a large company to develop games for these systems. With the PC, while always being a moving target, at least the dev tools (and the hardware) are cheap. Not that any of this matters much anymore, as there seems to be fewer and fewer small team PC productions...

Consoles are social

[gatkinso]

Four people all sitting together laughing, playing, drinking beer, and sharing an evening TOGETHER in the living room.

That is a game - not sitting in your room playing against some guy on the other coast.

This aspect of console gaming is often overlooked - but critical when examining why they are pushing PC games to the curb.

Re:Consoles are social

[FretMonkey]

I'm an avid online gamer (FPS) and have been for years. It is very social and breaks down barriers (geography, race, age, sex etc.) why do you want to see those barriers back in place? I prefer the PC because of the amount of flexibilty it provides me. I can modify my controls and even program macros in some games. I can tweak the game settings to my liking and to my peformance preferences. Consoles are great but because they try to simplify the gaming environment they forefit a lot in the way of flexibility. I would have no problem playing my online games with my sons XBOX if I had the control over the gaming environment and input devices that I do with my PC and if I had the ability to supe up my XBOX with higher performance hardware - but I don't...not even close.

Re:Consoles are social

[gatkinso]

Social as in real people looking each other in the eye, conversing without a headset, and clapping each other on the back.

Humans sitting next to each other, remember that? That is what I meant by social.

BTW: There are various online services so one can play that way - and you can change the way the controllers work on many console games.

And I don't want to take anything away from anybody - I simply think that is the big appeal to console users (it was for me) - and I happen to like to game pads.

Re:Consoles are social

[FretMonkey]

So I take it blind people or deaf people can't be social? Neat! You obviously have never played online on a competetive team if you think that the controllers for consoles are anywhere near as flexible as a PC.

Consoles are fine. I like the idea - they just have a LONG way to go before they take over the PC world of gaming was my point. I would love for consoles to be the standard it would do a lot to elimante online cheating and other disadvantages that non-standard systems bring to the table.

Consoles aren't for serious gamers - it's like snowboarding on a Walmart quality snowboard. It gets the job done - but it isn't competetive.

this article is just bizarre

[Bored Huge Krill]

I can't see anything in the text of the article that even speaks to the subject of the headline, much less justifies it.

The article talks about how difficult it is to make a persistent-world multiplayer game to work out financially, and talks about a couple of such games being cancelled for that reason. It also contrasts persistent versus non persistent multiplayer games.

I talks about platforms they run on, but I don't see where the console/PC distinction is being made. What am I missing?

Krill

Consle VS PC gaming = costs about same...

[blahplusplus]

.. If you're a hardcore gamer, plus the cost benefits of a PC gamer through Warez and emulation offset the 'so called' costs of gaming in general for both Console and PC

You've got good exclusive games on Xbox, GC and PS2. PS2 for your RPGS, GC for Quality stuff, and Xbox for FPS, Mech assault the 'rest'.

The fact that if you sell your computer stuff (video card, cpu, etc) at the right time you can get up to 50-60% discount on your next videocard/upgrades by selling on eBay that offset the so called "excessive costs" of PC gaming. You just got to be smart about it.

Console stuff devalues worse now more then ever because you can get the games for free and emulated on the PC after the console comes out even though some emulators take longer to make then others. Right now they have good working emulators for every system ever made except the GC, PS2 and Xbox. Look at SNES, Playsation, N64, GameboyAdvance, gameboy, NES, etc.

Indeed

[JMZero]

..and I get a fair bit of work done on XP/Putty.

XP has its problems, and some things about it really bug me. I just get tired of people doomsaying about how it's always crashing and you have to reinstall Windows once a month and you have to tweak drivers to get anything to run - and other garbage that just doesn't conform to my own experience, or the experiences of the hundreds of people I know who are running it.

I think some people still have this idea that Windows users are trying to scrape things done in the 5 minute intervals between blue screens - and it just isn't that way. But what do I know - I'm a fool with no real life experience.

Microsoft does NOT want you to play games on PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has wrung all the money it can from gamers on PC - it's in their best interest to kill it off - why? when you buy a PC game, MS makes NO money from you but when you buy an XBox game, MS makes money off of you - ever single game you buy.

MS is all about continuous revenue stream now. PC's are good for Windows upgrade packs and software upgrades. Games means nothing to them now ... that's why they came out with the XBox - not so much the living room thing but the continuous revenue stream (don't believe me, just read the Bill Gates to Warren Buffet memo in the Minnesota trial).

Meester

[Anonymous Coward]

Pc gaming has warez, nothing in the world can beat warez :)

Re:Another advantage to a console

[symbolic]

Personally, I prefer gaming on the PC. But as I was reading through some of the posts, something dawned on me...the only time I boot Windows is to play games. If I bought a console, I could re-purpose my Windows drive to a second Linux drive. Then it's Bye Bye Billy.

I'll stick to the console

[nullhero]

Personally, I prefer the console gaming. Mainly, I don't want to use my Mac for something as trivial as gaming and since my Mac is doing other things (compiling, backing itself up, search for ET, crawling news stories for me, etc etc) that I don't want to game on it.

The console lets me free up the Mac for the work things and lets me do just the fun things on it. Who cares about it needs to be recycled every few years. Give it to a charitable organization with the games.

I paid $150 for my PS1 and when I got my PS2 I donated my PS1 for a write off of $150 off my taxes and I'll do the same for my $200 PS2 - which was a gift so therefore I'm making money on it. BTW: I also took a write-off for the games. Very profitable!!

Used to the same with my PC's when I had to continually buy a new one every couple of years. But now I have a 2gig RAM - 120 gig HD - Dual processor 867mhz G4 - which is two years old and has yet to slow down.
- Sorry to the Boy's and Girl's Club which received my donations but as soon as the PS3 is out you'll have a PS2.

Later

It's the games, stupid

[nbanman]

Best racing series I've ever played: Gran Turismo

Best RPG series I've ever played: Final Fantasy (admittedly, I prefer console-styele RPGs)

Best "Arcade-Style" Game Developer: EA Big

These are the types of games I like to play nowadays, and they're all done best on consoles. If I was into other styles of gaming (FPS, RTS, strategy), the PC would be a better (but much more expensive) choice.

I used to like FPS's, but I got bored of single-player and got tired of getting my ass handed to me by cheaters and 16 year olds who play 8 hours a day and call me "haha gay loser faggot" when they frag me.

I used to like RTS games but find that the learning curve is too high to get into any particular game. Too many options, too much stuff to do. In Warcraft II, there were only two races and they were nearly identical, and yet there was endless nuance. In Warcraft III, there's so much variation that the nuances get lost. I mean, they're there, but you gotta be a Grand Master to appreciate them.

I used to like strategy games (who wasn't at some point a Civilization junkie?) but I've found that as the market for the genre gets more rarefied, so do the games. They tend to be highly specialized, with a steep learning curve and low production values. I'm sure they're immensely satisfying if you can devote a lot of time them, but I don't have that kind of time anymore.

As many people have remarked before me, games are the only credible killer app that drives home-PC upgrades. Digital video editing is not something with mass-market appeal (sorry Apple, Intel), and most people don't do CG on their home boxes. I suppose people do buy new hardware somewhat for DVD encoding, but aside from that, it's games baby. I know I upgrade much less frequently now that I don't game on my computer. Intel should be very worried.

If I were them, I'd get into the gaming business, or at least forge strong partnerships with developers. It's been a successful strategy for other hardware manufacturers. Look at Sony's developers and partnerships (Square, Polyphony Digital), or Microsoft buying Bungie. Having some exclusive games on the level of a Gran Turismo (can you imagine how good it would be on a PC?) would help quite a bit.

After perusing this thred...

[LanceMan]

I noticed that I've seen most of these arguments before, back in the day.

PC-C64-Nintendo
or
PC-Amiga
or
PC-Mac

hmm, why is the PC still in the argument? Cause I can now play all of my old C64-Nintendo-Amiga games on it. I know when the Super Nintendo was big, I wanted to buy a game for it. Rented every game at the vid store, beat em all rather quickly, they did not seem to have a challenge. Off to the computerstore at the mall, and there was a shelf with all the SNES games, and a shelf of Tie-Fighter with a Gravis Joystick. I sold my SNES to the store 2 weeks later for the TF expansion.

Two words: Couch potato

[Openstandards.net]

Are the games on the PC superior? To-date, I believe so. However, the long hours of play that MMORPGs demand also demand the ability to lay back and relax, particularly if you are forced to endure insane "grinds" (4-16 hours) in order to level.

It's worth nothing though that FF XI is now available for both the PC and PS2, and the two clients play on the same server together. This asks a new question. Do MMOG companies really have to choose between PC and console? Could the future be of MMOGs be integrated multiplatforms?

This is indeed a sad trend...

[meowsqueak]

...which I cynically refer to as 'consolidation'.

Nobody's mentioned this obvious issue:

[Kiyooka]

will this question become moot if/when PCs and consoles converge into a single home multimedia center?

PC gaming won't die unless the PC does

[{tele}machus_*1]

For as long as people have PCs in their homes, someone will create games for people to play on their PCs. For as long as someone is creating games for PCs, someone will try to use every little ounce of processor power from the PC to make the game look good and play well. For as long as someone is writing games that push the edge of the PC power envelope, there will be an incentive for companies like ATI and Nvidia to produce aftermarket products that add processing power and make games even better for people with the disposable income to buy the product. For as long as all the previous statements are true, there's money to be made in creating PC games.

Maybe the PC will be a less popular gaming platform, but it is never going away. Big developers are not the be-all-end-all of games. If EA stopped writing PC games tomorrow, another company (or group of small companies) would step into EA's place to grab the abandoned market share.

Re: Keyboard

[Lord Kestrel]

I piss off the people I work with because I always use the keyboard for everything. On the other hand, it's painful for me to watch some of them sit there and slowly use the mouse to copy and paste things when I could've had it done in a few seconds with a couple keyboard commands.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you about civ. I like PTW over the new Conquests expansion, but I've spent many a night up until daybreak with just one more turn syndrome.

Dunno...

[scot4875]

If the PC game scene were to die out, unlikely as that is, I'd no longer have a need for Windows.

--Jeremy

Consoles are for kids, real gamers use PCs

[2TecTom]

Real gamers build modded overclocked PC's built to satisfy the need for speed.

Proprietary designs made to ensure profit is a typical corporate evil deed.

The real reason behind consoles is consumer cheapness and corporate greed.

Re:Consoles are for kids, real gamers use PCs

[gatkinso]

With a console there is not need for that as the game runs fine with the hardware.

Real gamers build their systems because they have to.

Disclaimer: I am into both PC and console (Xbox) gaming. I bought the console because my wife refused to touch the PC games. Well she loves the Xbox, and hooking up 4 controllers to that bad boy and playing Maddens NFL 2003 while swilling beer with my peeps kicks total ass. Haven't tried the online service - I wonder if it sucks.

Do you prefer watching movies on the PC too?

[Optic7]

That is the simplest answer to the "consoles/TVs have low resolution" arguments. Who prefers to watch movies on the PC? Except for RTS games, I believe resolution is a non-factor in this debate.

So, most of the same reasons that make people prefer watching movies on their TVs should apply to games: screen size, (usually) better sound system, access for more people/players, comfortable sitting/laying/standing on head/whatever positions, etc.

Add to that: convenience/ease of use (throw the CD in, hit the power button, be ready to play in 10 seconds) and less technical troubles (how about never having to call/email/look on the web for technical support?).

I used to be a PC gamer only, but now mainly prefer gaming on the console (PS2). Funny thing is that what converted me was none of the reasons above - they were all just gravy. What did it was actually giving a console a fair try with some of the best games it had to offer (at the time, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Silent Hill, Driver, etc). I was blown away by how fun, entertaining, cheap, and free of headaches gaming could actually be. There was simply nothing like those games on the PC. Now the only games I still play on the PC are FPS games, mainly because of control and network play - and network play on console is on its way to being (or has been already?) resolved.

Re:Do you prefer watching movies on the PC too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be a PC gamer only, but now mainly prefer gaming on the console (PS2). Funny thing is that what converted me was none of the reasons above - they were all just gravy. What did it was actually giving a console a fair try with some of the best games it had to offer (at the time, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Silent Hill, Driver, etc).

Would you believe that I've played all those games - and the last time I touched a console was probably a Megadrive in 1995?

I played them all on emulators. In the case of Driver, it wasn't even an old game at the time.

The PC will always win in the end, because it's simply more versatile than consoles will ever be - by definition, since a console that can do everything a PC can do is called a PC.

Flexibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I play Flight Sims and FPS game Titles.

I want to know where I plug into the Console my Simped F16+ Rudder peddles, Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS Flight System and TrackIR POV Device?

I have Used a PC for Gaming over 10 Years now and I have Zero plans to Buy a Console.

What if I buy a PS2 and want to play an XBOX Game?

Why cant I upgrate my Hardware eevery 6 Months?, You mean I have to wait 5 Years?.

If Im running out of Buttons on a HOTAS system and Keyboard then a Gamepad controller has enough?.

An FPS without a Mouse *Rolls Eyes*.
I spent more money on My mouse than the cost of a whole XBOX.

Can I use a Console to edit and make Maps like Im now doing in Battlefield Vietnam?

Can I access a League forum and upload Skin packs to a FTP?

Can I load external server Browsers like All Seeing Eye that have all my Buddies tracked accross all my Games?

And the List goes On

Extrapolation skews the numbers again...

[Amon CMB]

It's fallacious to assume that the current trend of rising numbers for online console gaming accurately represents the maximum potential growth.

Here we have a market that starts from practically nothing to its growth towards a theoretical cap, thanks to the favorable conditions of broadband these days.

They compare it to PC online gaming - something that has had years to mature and is much closer to its theoretical cap. PC online gaming matured at a much slower, more deliberate rate (as does PC hardware in general). By contrast, console gaming has gone from nothing to something in a quick burst.

Question is, what happens when online console gaming hits its limit (and probably much faster)? Will it 'overtake' the PC online gaming scene?

Not superiority, but niches change

[Ra5pu7in]

I don't believe the console will ever be superior to a pc for gaming. I'm one of the crowd that games on both. Consoles have constrained hardware - it is limited to the level at the production time. PCs are open-ended in the respect that you can slap in any new card you are of a mind to purchase (and working drivers are available for).

What is happening right now is a shifting of the niches that console gaming and pc gaming (and let's not forget arcade gaming) have held for so long. PCs no longer have a monopoly in online gaming. However, consoles still are not as cutting edge in potential graphics and programming adaptability. (By adaptability I mean the ability to program in any number of ways - not just per a consoles specs.)

Personally, I hope the foul-mouthed bunch who plays only for their own pleasure migrates to consoles and leaves the PC MMORPG to those who really want to develop community. Pipe dream, eh?

microsoft got into consoles

[asciiRider]

I don't care much about this topic. I own a dreamcast that I fire up -maybe- once every 2 weeks. it's enough to scratch the rare gaming itch i get.

the consoles are going to be doing much more than games. Why do you think Microsoft got into the market? Heck, my dreamcast has a built in modem and I can browse the web with it.

I'm starting a summary of console pros and cons

[tepples]

If one of us wrote and distributed a really thorough consoles vs. PC games comparison, listing all the conceivable pluses and minuses of each, along with some market analysis, would that ever end a debate like this?

It would clarify the facts so that we don't have to repeat them in every deity-levee Slashdot article. But even then, I bet people would still cut-and-paste for +5. OK, let's start:

Console pros

• guaranteed minimum level of hardware performance
• testing can concentrate on one hardware configuration
• output to big-screen TV as standard equipment
• inexpensive
• some titles support multiple users per terminal
• exclusive titles with strong trademarks, especially for children
• can be used while somebody else is doing her homework on the family PC
• game interfaces tend to be less text-heavy thus more immersive and friendlier to preliterate babysitting clients

Console cons

• closed bootloader means less useful as a game programming learning tool
• closed bootloader means fewer innovative games from smaller developers
• no games support user-created modifications as extensive as those of the pc versions of nwn, q3a, unreal, half-life, etc
• few if any games support mouse-like pointing devices or pc-style keyboards
• support for >640x480 pixels non-existent
• hardware not the very latest unless in the first year of a console's life

Got any more bullets to shoot?

Re:I'm starting a summary of console pros and cons

[brucmack]

I'd add that consoles are not general purpose appliances and thus have no added value beyond their specific function.

I'd also say it's a con that developers can't fix any problems with the games after release. Most console games I've played have at least one unintentional glitch.

Games and copyright

[tepples]

Personally, I believe that copyrights should expire in 14 years, as the US first intended, so that classic games would be public-domain by now. Pac-man should be as free as Chess

Both "MS. PAC-MAN" and "FIDE" are trademarks, but anybody can make a game whose object is to step on each space in a maze without infringing as long as isn't called "PAC-anything". Copyright applies only to the expression of a game, such as the specific layout of each maze and the graphics used to represent the characters. Even if Namco had thought to patent such gameplay methods, any U.S. patent on such gameplay will have expired, as patents in the U.S. and most other countries last only 20 years after filing.

Re:Games and copyright

[Minna Kirai]

Both "MS. PAC-MAN" and "FIDE" are trademarks, but anybody can make a game whose object is to step on each space in a maze without infringing as long as isn't called "PAC-anything".

I was talking more about redistribution than reimplementation. If the copyright on Pac-Man had expired, it would be fully legal to distribute Pac-Man ROM images (as many people already do in a bootleg manner). Sharers would just have to ensure that they do not create the impression that their efforts are endorsed by or affiliated with Namco. (Slapping "Completely unauthorized" onto each file is one simple way to comply)

But since I was discussing what might happen if it were still possible for a copyright to expire, this is all hypothetical. We don't really have any historical examples of a copyright on something expiring while its trademark is still intact. However, there are cases where a work has been voluntarily placed into the public domain, without relinquishing the trademark.

"Night of the Living Dead" is a public domain film, but someone (else?) still owns the trademark to those words. The movie can be distributed freely, as long as you are careful not to cause confusion with the trademark's new owner.

Same-machine multiplayer?

[tepples]

(Ignore the mouse though, it won't help)

Then what's player 2 supposed to use? ;-)

SMB had 6 input buttons, which is easily handled on a keyboard

That game often needs three keypresses at once: forward, run, and jump. Many cheap keyboards distributed with cheap PCs can't handle a lot of simultaneous keypresses.

(if you had mentioned one of the post-NES sequels, then it'd have needed more buttons and the PC situation would be worse)

OK, now s/Mario/Smash/ and see how it still works. Don't forget that Super Smash Bros. allows for four players on one machine.

But yet, if the programmers wished, they could allow you adequate control by mapping the 40 available PC keys to different combat moves.

Yeah, like an RTS. But can a PC support two keyboards?

Re:Same-machine multiplayer?

[Minna Kirai]

Many cheap keyboards distributed with cheap PCs can't handle a lot of simultaneous keypresses.

True, but it'd be a rare keyboard that can't handle 3 simul keydowns. Especially if the keys are widely distributed, which is how the game designer would naturally lay out the inputs (UDLR on left hand, jump/run/pause on right). If this problem was very common, then we'd surely hear about it from the legions who play console emulators.

My own keyboard is very cheap, and holding down Z and X will block recognition of A, for example. But it'd be hard-pressed to notice this if I wasn't methodically checking them. The arrow and numpad keys (which are very likely to be chosen for games) don't exhibit int

The normal lower limit is 4 simul keydowns. You can get a lot more than 4 if the keys are widely spread out, though. Examining my own inexpensive keyboard, I see that holding down "ZXCV" will block detection of "B" or "N",

Still plenty

OK, now s/Mario/Smash/ and see how it still works. Don't forget that Super Smash Bros. allows for four players on one machine.

It's easy enough to buy 4 $9.99 gamepads and plug them all into the PC with a USB hub. (Pay $19.99 for each controller, and you can get console-style analog sticks too)

The real barrier to SmashBros on a PC is not input, though, but output. The normal PC monitor is just too small to let four people view it fairly (without reaching Twister-like degrees of intimacy)

But can a PC support two keyboards?

Yes, if one of them is USB. But that's just silly.

Pointless topic

[w00master]

Such a pointless topic that just causes a pc-fanboy vs. console-fanboy flame war. Rarely, in the end, does ANYTHING remotely intelligent come out of these sorts of topics. In any case, I'll be a hypocrite and put my 2 cents in. I have no preference between console and PC gaming. To me, it depends on the type of game it is that determines where my "preferences" lie. Simply put: 1. FPS PC's definitely excel here. There is simply nothing better than keyboard mouse control. I do enjoy playing FPS's on my consoles, but in the end it just FEELS better on PC's. 2. Fighting Games Sorry, PC's lose here. Heck, when was the last time a good fighting game was developed for the PC? Ummm... Can't think of any. Frankly, no PC fighting game has ever come close to the brilliance and complexity of such fighting games like Soul Calibur series and the Virtua Fighter series. Why? Well, they just play better with controllers. Ever try and play a fighting game with keyboard and mouse. Or heck, just a keyboard? Sure, you can get a controller for the PC, but then you lose the "social" aspect of fighting games. A big group surrounding a PC is just simply lame. 3. Strategy Games PC's are clear out the choice here. No doubt about it. Trying to play a strategy on consoles is simply clunky and frustrating as heck. Maybe someday some developer will figure this out, but I've yet to be convinced this will ever happen. 4. Role-Playing Games Here, this is a split-vote. I go in either direction. Both platforms have examples of brilliant RPG's. PC's with the Ultima Series, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Diablo series, etc. Consoles with the Final Fantasy Series, Xenosaga, Chrono Trigger, etc. etc. Control-wise? It's a toss up here as well. 5. Sports Games (action based) I have to stress "action based." What I mean by this is Madden Series, World Series Baseball, NFL 2K series... etc. "Sim" based sports games are a different category in my book like: Out of the Park series, Micro League Baseball... etc. Anyway, here the social aspect of gaming comes out, and here (in my book) consoles have the edge. Control wise, I give the edge to consoles as well. Playing a football game with a keyboard is just pointless. There you have it. There are simply just some types of games better suited for one platform over another. If you read the majority of posts that support PC-gaming you'll see that 9 times out of 10 they are almost exclusively strategy game fans or FPS fans. The same holds true for console gamers. People have to open their eyes. Console gaming won't go away. PC-gaming won't go away either. What will happen (probably) is a convergence of the two. Consoles with greater flexibility of PC-gaming: Mods, deeper strategy games, etc. PC's will eventually gain the "plug and play" aspect of consoles, easier implementation on a big screen TV, better control standards for controllers, etc. *whew* w00master

let the console do the gaming

[corban.elektrolite]

i think this would be a good direction to go to. when the console does cover the heavy gaming section[1], the pc would be free from that strange hardware boundaries: when you do not use the pc for playing games, you do not need to buy a new graphics card every year.

the high hardware demands are only driven by games[2]. ok, if you had very special things to do (you are a music producer or you develop hq-3d apps for hollywood), you need to also update your hardware, but joe schmock doesn't need to.

ReTrends shmends, they mean nothing.

[cbreaker]

Trends come and go. Consoles are good for the average person wishing to play a few video games, but many of them would rather have a bunch of cool games on the PC if they had one or if the one they have was powerful enough.

Consoles have their place and I have an XBox because the mod chip stuff on the Xbox is fun, but overall I find that PC games are more fun, more interesting, and more detailed.

I do enjoy some titles on the Xbox; Outlaw Golf is fun and Fusion Frenzy on a big TV with four people can be fun too. Consoles are better for having a friend over to play a game then a PC is.

But, PC's will always have the edge for technological superiority and so games will always be written for them to make use of this cool stuff. And there will always be games where you need a Keyboard, and console games with keyboards aren't very practical. MMORPG's on consoles may be okay for some aspects, but in order for an online RPG to have any decent community people need to be able to communicate fluidly. Can't do that with a gamepad..

Like someone said up a ways, neither is going to die, and they both have their pros and cons. They can and will coexist for some time to come.

D3 & general comments

[Merovign]

Doom3 XBox will have a coop mode, PC won't.

That is SOOOOO retarded I'm almost considering ignoring D3. Already written a letter.

Oh, topic? Umm, well, for many of us, the choice is not PC vs. Console, it's PC and Console vs. PC.

Right now, the PC is superior for most things (not cost). Remember that you can use console-style controllers with a PC for games that seem to need them, like fighting games or 3d platformers.

I can't play a FPS with console controllers, I've tried. The closest I came was Bounty Hunter, and that was more of a platformer than a FPS in many ways. Without auto-aiming it was awful, even though auto-aim sometimes targeted innocents (oops! sorry!).

I don't understand the idea that RPGs are better on consoles. Given the complexity, I've always found the PC interface to be better. And the high-res detail capability.

PC/Console ... what's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

With Linux on console, and linux on PC, what's the difference? It's all about the juice, and who can make the most money off what entertainment medium.

Smaller Market

[Nazmun]

17inch lcd + shuttle is not something a lot of people can easily afford. Although lan parties are popular among many gaming geeks, it is far from being mainstream.

Re: Keyboard

[Venner]

And I wholeheartedly agree with you about civ. I like PTW over the new Conquests expansion, but I've spent many a night up until daybreak with just one more turn syndrome.

And that, Lord Kestrel, gets you added to my "friends" list. You could be a Nazi Goth Feminist pro-SCO Satan worshiper and it still wouldn't make a difference ;)

Viva la CIV

Re: Keyboard

[Lord Kestrel]

Right back at ya ;)