Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
This topic has been absolutely done to death.
It's pretty clear that neither form of gaming is going to "die".
May we never see th
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.
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.
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.
-el
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.
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.
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?
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
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.
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?
My understanding is that they are stepping in to save the PC by uniting the X-Box and Windows game development environment.
The CB App. What's your 20?
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 :)
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
the only difference between a rut and a grave, are the dimensions
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?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
.... 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...
Putting a windows cd backwards, plays evil messages, but it gets worse, putting it right, installs windows.
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.
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.
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.
"Nothing is so important that you cannot make fun of it." -Clarke
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
- 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.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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
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.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
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.
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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
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.
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.
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
Eat at Joe's.
...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?
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
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
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.
404 Error:
What's this about no killer games recently?
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!
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!
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.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
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. :-)
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
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.
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.
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
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.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
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.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
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.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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
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.
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...
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.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
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...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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...
-
the console pales in every imaginable way.
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.)and with a really decent gaming PC as low as $500 (everyone already had an existing monitor no?) the console is not much cheaper.
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.