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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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. :)

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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?

[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.

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

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 ...

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

[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.

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:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant

[rhiorg]

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

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

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?

[ajs]

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

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.

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?

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[bigman2003]

Well, the next Starcraft will be a console game.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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

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 ;)

"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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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...

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...

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.