Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Consoles Marginalizing PC Gaming?

Posted by michael on from the gaming-unplugged dept.

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?"

27 of 603 comments (clear)

  1. Console vs. PC by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Console vs. PC by deathazre · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    2. Re:Console vs. PC by ferralis · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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. :)

      --
      Any generalization is a stupid one.
    3. Re:Console vs. PC by Mateito · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      You just aint trying hard enough.

      --
      Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
    4. Re:Console vs. PC by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Interesting
      • 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).

    5. Re:Console vs. PC by acidrain69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    6. Re:Console vs. PC by toasted_calamari · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Let's make a difference
    7. Re:Console vs. PC by TXG1112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  2. Ask Rev. Lovejoy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  3. Games: Topics Beat To Death by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  4. Old School by Analogy+Man · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  5. Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs? by jjsaul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs? by Jaguar777 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
  6. What about the workplace? by Bander · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    --
    What we need more of is science!
  7. I think it will stand here by Guardian+of+Terra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Mod'ing games, eh? by superhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    -el

  9. Two words: LAN party by bliSSter138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. If other OSes gain popularity... by MolecularBear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --

    Magnatune: Quality (DRM-free) MP3/FLAC/
  11. multiple factors by Lust · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 :)

  12. Different Demographics by RailGunner · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  13. Price of console vs. price of graphics card by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. No Killer PC Apps Lately by pezpunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    i could live a little longer in this prison
  15. It's ALL about the controls by xylix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  16. How can anyone afford a gaming PC? by wwwrun · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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?

  17. Not to call out the trolls, but... by Dragoon412 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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?

  18. Tactical Mistakes By Games Companies by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.