Slashdot Mirror
Is The Xbox The Cause Of The PC Gamer's Downfall?
Thanks to GamerDad for its editorial discussing whether the Xbox has grabbed much of the development effort and talent from the PC gaming scene, with the author arguing: "From what I've been able to gather, there just isn't much interest in PC games unless as an afterthought to a console release. Deus Ex 2 and Thief III are superb examples of this mindset." He continues of the Xbox: "Its introduction has clearly robbed a lot of the resources that used to be dedicated to making PC entertainment. This is fine if you're willing to buy an Xbox and support Microsoft directly that way. It's not fine if you're a PC gamer that wants what the PC can offer specifically, and not some watered down version of what you've come to expect from a company." Do you agree?
First of all, pc games are not dead. Second, their reduced popularity is certainly due to the rise in all consoles. With a game cube costing a 100 bucks, consoles are competing well. Anyways, nethack is alive and well.....
When the XBox came out, I figured that it would be killed by the PC, not the other way around.
Microsoft might not be too popular around here, but they sure aren't stupid or lacking in business sense, either way.
Rob
Once the computer was the console (spectrum etc) then nintendo took the platforms, sony took the arcade racers, xbox has some of the half racing sims, things like colin mcrae, toca race driver 2. I was nuts on Rainbow Six 3 on XBox then i saw it on the PC blew me away totally, much bigger game, much more beautiful and the planning is awsome. In short its a dumbed down game on the XBox. Similarly you aren't ever going to see something like Grand Prix Legends or EF2000 a console for a very long time.
I think PC is where the hardcore ultra-realistic things happen, as well as the ultra innovative (see Gish slashdot article a bit ago) because you don't need a super expensive development kit.
Is that it's essentially PC hardware. Heck, it uses the DirectX API. So what's my problem? Why not port games to PC since it's almost exactly the same. Answer: MS pays developers to develop for X-Box exclusively (think Halo).
While I wouldn't mind buying a PC X-Box kit (I'm not calling it an emulator since it wouldn't be emulating anything), I feel stupid maintaining two x86 PCs just because his Billness decided that's the way it should be. (Everyone talks about the extra X-box features, but really the feature set is dumbed down PC interface).
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
This is nothing new consoles vs PC, they always swap positions every few years. As for it being XBOX thsi time? No, more likely it was Sony's PS1 or PS2, MS was a little late to the game.
Sure I'm supporting Microsoft by buying an X-box, however, it means that I don't have to have a separate windows partition to play the few games that I do play.
Hopefully the next round of pc-gaming will come about on a Non-MS Platform -grin-
Ok, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The cause of the PC Games downfall is well known.
Because of the differences in controls and displays some game genres are better on the PC and some game genres are better on consoles. Anything with lots of information on the screen like a Civilization or a Master of Orion, RTS games like Warcraft 3 and first person shooters are all PC genres. Games like platformers, fighting games and such are all console genres. A big screen and a gamepad are perfect for these. Some games work well on either, like puzzle games.
The reason that PC gaming is going down the tubes is that there is no innovation in the genres which are good to play on the PC. FPS and RTS are pretty much stuck in a rut. Each new game is the same as all the others. Sure there are better graphics and sound, but eye candy does not a hit game make. Think about it, there are only 2, TWO pc games coming out that people are anticipating. Doom3 and HL2. The reason they are anticipated is because they promise innovation is a dormant genre. But look over in the console arena, what do you see? What's that? Nintendo with its GBA hookups and FF:CC? XboX Live? I see new things there! It's not the same old game its always been.
Sure, there are more reasons than one why the PC is going downhill as a gaming platform. All the cheapass commodity games stocking up at Wal-Mart are no help. But then again, you see the same sorts of things coming out for the PS2 and GBA. The primary reason for PC gaming being in a rut is the lack of innovation in PC genres and the extensive innovation in console genres.
Some people I tell this to try to argue that there is PC innovation and I'm wrong. If this is you then consider this. Why is Counter-Strike the most popular online game ever after all these years? When it came out it was revolutionary. Real weapons, team based objective gameplay that wasn't CTF. And staying dead until the next round. This did not exist then. And since CS came out, no game has made such great leaps into making new gameplay as to unseat CS. Nothing. If one of them did, then CS wouldn't still be the most popular game. Tribes 2 and NS both came close, but they both suffered the same 2 problems. 1) Gameplay too complex to jump right in. 2) The devs killed the game off unintentionally.
So until HL2 and Doom3 come out my video game money is still going to Nintendo.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Since this latest generation of consoles came out, I have a GameCube that collects large amount of dust, and my friend's Xbox would be collecting dust if I was still borrowing it from him. One reason I simply hate consoles is controllers are usually much to annoying to mess with, keyboard and mouse is usually better for any game in my perspective, but GREATLY excelling in the first person shooter genre. Another reason consoles are not preferred by me is the lack of options most games have: Sensitivity, complete customization of controls, etc. Playing a first person shooter where you turn around at 1/3rd of the rate that you can on the PC by twitching your mouse just slightly gets on my nerves. It makes games basically "If he comes up behind you you're dead." Anyway, enough rambling and I'm sleep deprived so if none of this makes sense don't kill me.
the Political Inquirer
There can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the X-Box has been pretty successful at muscling into the PC games market. Halo, Deus Ex 2, KOTOR and Thief 3 would all have been PC exclusives in the past. What I can't make my mind up over is whether this is a good thing.
At first glance, the arguments for it being a bad thing are pretty damned strong. Deus Ex 2 was clearly crippled by the limitations imposed by console hardware. Halo is also widely believed to be "not the game it could have been", had it not been transformed into a console-first game. Console games have a reputation (among PC gamers) for being shallow button-mashing fests.
However, if you look at the issue with more of an open mind, there are some more positive aspects to this. KOTOR rocked... I've played it through twice and I can't see any way in which having the X-Box release harmed the game. Having an X-Box release no doubt increases the sales of these games dramatically, increasing the incentive for developers.
As I grow older, I find I care less and less about the factors that used to tie me to PC gaming. It's nice to be able to just stick the disk in the drive and play a game... no install procedure, no driver updates, no worrying over whether I need an upgrade. The issue of playing fpses on a console controller no longer really bothers me. A lot of my PC-fps playing friends say "that must suck, because you can't... like... turn around instantly". This kind of misses the point that a decent console fps will be engineered so that you don't need to and, in multiplayer, you're playing against people on a level playing field.
I don't think the current X-Box is going to make much more progress against the PC gaming market. I suspect (although I may be wrong) that titles like Farcry are, at last, pushing PC games beyond the technical capabilities of the current consoles. However, when the next-gen consoles arrive, PC gaming could be in very deep trouble indeed.
And it will get "worse" for PC gamers. What are the big advantages of a PC game over a console? Display resolution, processing power, input devices. Well for the first two - HDTV isn't far off and next gen consoles will run rings around all but the highest-end PC's. As for input - check how many people are playing FFxi on their PS2 with USB keyboards.
So, yeah. Consoles will be the main focus of the big game publishers and devs.
But I do see a silver lining. Smaller game companies and homebrew games will get more play time as PC gamers tire of ports of console games. I also believe that game publishers will promote open-sourceing of games on the PC and encourage mod communities to attempt the sucesses of half-life.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
Translation: better for the genres I prefer.
Which is fine. But would you play Mario Sunshine or Wind Waker and think "Boy, I wish I could control this with a mouse and arrow keys"?
When the way to keep up with your hobby is to spend your time and money upgrading Windows, downloading new drivers, rebooting constantly, buying new sticks of RAM, buying new video cards, replacing HDs, watching games install, dealing with Windows security, rebooting some more, dealing with games that don't work and can't be returned, OR buy 1 game console w/ memory card and 1 game disc for it, and play...
You begin to see that it's just the matter that PC gaming is expensive in time and money. When you stop using your PC for gaming, you'll find it'll take a good 4 years before your computer is "too slow" and you upgrade for a fraction of the cost. Plus your computer's suddenly a lot more reliable because you can use an OS which has fewer games but more stability, like Mac OS X or a Linux flavour.
I'll put it another way: my swiss army knife isn't as good at some things as a butcher knife, and if cutting meat was something I'd want to do a lot, a butcher knife would be the way to go for me. A console's just a better, more concentrated way to game!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
When I want to sit down and play a game for five minutes and stop, I turn on my Xbox and play some SSX or Sega Soccer Slam.
When I want a game that immerses me, I open my laptop and play NwN for hours and hours.
There are exceptions to this on Xbox, like Morrowind (also on PC) and the upcoming Fable; and vice versa on PC, with Flash games and the venerable Solitare. But I think for the most part, they offer different experiences, and can and will continue to co-exist...
honnold.org - sometimes-rock band, all the time awesome forum
Xbox is my console of choice. However I have to complain about the lack of RPGs for the system, especially online capable ones. While Sony is gettings games like Final Fantasy XI and EverQuest, Xbox has released two that I am barely interested in; Morrowind and KotOR. Both of which are not online capable. I mean hell, Xbox has a NIC built right in! Make use of it!
With True Fantasy Online recently canceled and Fable looking further and further away, I'm starting to look at Playstation more and more as a serious alternative to Xbox just to play my Final Fantasy series.
Sneaking with a keyboard is actually easier than with an analog stick. The reason is that with an analog stick, if you push the thing too far you're suddently no longer sneaking and very likely messed up the mission. Not everybody can hold an analog stick at exactly the position that lets you sneak with maximum speed. On the keyboard you hold a button and are restricted to the maximum sneak speed. Sure, you can do that on a console as well but that kinda defeats the purpose of the analog stick, no?
Fighting games are easier on the PC, in my experience. The keyboard is the most precise directional input, since you have separate keys for each direction which you hit with different fingers. No accidentally pressing diagonal or something. Also, the keyboard resembles the controls in an arcade much closer than a joypad, since you're pushing buttons with different fingers instead of using your thumb for all of them and there must be a reason people want to play fighing games on arcade sticks.
Also, mouselook helps against the shoddy camera systems most third person games use. Generally I have more problems with the camera in console games than in PC games. Super Mario Sunshine, for example, has a really bad camera system (yes, I'm aware there are worse, but Sunshine's is bad enough). You can correct it with the c-stick, but that helps little if you're busy doing something else (like running over a small path of timed blocks). On the other hand, I never had problems with the camera in Quake 3's or UT2003/04's third person modes or the games Oni and Max Payne.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yeah, it's true that MS gaming division isn't making them money, but their bread-and-butter, MS-Office and MS-Windows make so much dough that they pay the losses of every losing division and still rake in over a billion dollars without even mentioning their other profitable divisions. I don't think MS has anything to worry about, except maybe the PC drying up as a gaming market. I have my doubts about that, as well, because graphics technology continues to be pushed on the PC side, which eventually influences consoles. Consoles have the plus of standardized hardware, so it's easier to write for them, but you don't get "cutting edge" graphics, except maybe on the console's release.
:(
MS has hurt PC gaming, by buying many PC developers and moving them exclusively to XBox dev (then porting to PC with a different developer later). The FASA (Mechwarrior) and Bungie (Halo) teams are prime examples. Basically, they've moved the PC game to play second fiddle to the XBox game, but adding all the missing features later. In many ways this works out good for MS, because the XBox is basically a standardized PC, which means many less configuration problems and simplified debugging (meaning shorter release schedule and thus less investment), so they can shovel the cost of PC hardware debugging to a third party developer. Unfortunately, it also means late releases on the PC and controls that either don't work, or are so dumbed down the game is either too easy or too hard
[DISCLAIMER]I don't play a lot of games.[/DISCLAIMER]
But could the downfall of PC games have anything to do with the upgrade cycle? People still think of computers as expensive, complex, and evil devices. This drastically reduces their desire to upgrade. Relatively few people buy computers primarily for gaming. Rather they want to use internet applications (web, email, chat, p2p) and office applications (word processing, spreadsheets, accounting). All of the latest versions of this stuff run fine on a 3-4 year old PC and with longhorn and the next Office still at least 2 years away, there's no indication that this will change anytime soon. Traditionally, for sale computer games have a lot of high powered graphics that require cutting edge systems. Well, people don't have the same impotus to upgrade that they once did, hence the market has probably shrunk.
Also, it seems to me that improvements in graphics aren't as important as they once were, even in graphically intense games such as first person shooters. Things like reflections or fire effects don't affect gameplay as much as early improvements did. It's all garnish. Since high end graphics were a driving motivation in the PC games market, the diminishing gains of graphics technology has probably affected PCs. Now, today's console's look almost as good, if not better than, most of today's pcs.
The reason is exactly what many people point to as being the cause of it's supposed death. Two quick reasons. The first is portability. Consoles have finally reached a point where the price point and power can match that of low cost PCs. A game on a high end console can look an awful lot like the PC. Splinter Cell on the Xbox is almost the same as the PC. I see the next generation of consoles being able to port their games over the PC much easier than ever before. The second is that 2005 will have a gap for console users. The PC will have several new graphic engines out featuring several new games. Consoles have a bit of a lag waiting for the new hardware to show up. PC games will be able to take advantage of the gamer and be able to really "wow" them.
What you are seeing is the beginning of the PC and console merging into one unit. Microsoft holds a huge advantage in this area having the dominant OS. Already there are rumors of a Xbox Next PC which combines the next generation Xbox with a PC. Isn't this the logical evolution of gaming? Within five years, it's more likely that consoles will merge into PCs, rather than PC gaming dying off. The gaming community could see exclusive titles for the Sony Playstation PC or the Nintendo GamePC, but with universal PC titles being able to play on all of them.
This is a non story. Games makers are driven by market forces. If games makers are focussing on making X-box games to make more money, good for them. You don't like this? Sorry.
;)
How much money do you pay for a good PC game? $40-60. How much does it cost to make one? A lot more. Why can you get it for $40-60, because lots of other people are buying it as well, so you benefit from your collective purchasing power.
The market will grow and shrink based on how much people are spending on games. If there are a tonne of people out there who want to buy PC games, people will make games for them to compete for their dollars. If many of those people switch to console, surprise, there will be less PC and more console games made.
I think it's best to go with the flow. Buy games you enjoy, If they're console games, buy a console. If they're PC buy a PC (someone earlier identified how having a console + linux box is a killer combo of great games without the need for dual boot or a windows layer).
If you want to really whine, try being a mac gamer
---
I support spreading santorum
This writer seems to have misguided his disappointment with big-money-controlled game publishing. The Golden Age of Gaming he remembers so well has largely been gone for more than a decade.
It didn't disappear when console-centric ports started showing up. It disappeared when big publishers started making big money, started becoming risk-averse, and started pushing the glitz envelope to sell the same-old-game.
With the consoles getting an increasing share of publisher attention, PC Gaming is going to be forced to adapt to its strong suit: independent games, innovation, and user modifications.
If you ask me, this is a Good Thing and is going to usher in a new golden age of gaming: One where the PC market returns to its small-team, innovative roots, as the me-too game-publishing sticks to the console arena.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
The cost argument is getting increasingly moot. If you want to play PC games you need upgrade your graphics card about once every 2-3 years. The trick is purchasing the right graphics card at the right time. Processor, motherboard, and RAM are so inexpensive as to make them an almost insignificant part of the equation. Particularly if all you care about is getting performance equivalent to that which consoles provide. $300 every couple of years or so should keep you well ahead of the console market. And given that the modern generation of consoles has been hitting the market at $300 price points, you're not really spending a tremendous amount more money over the long haul.
On the short end the console market has a 3 year turn around between new generations of hardware. On the long side it hits 5 years. They can't afford to innovate any faster then that. The PC advances on at a 6 month to a year per generation rate. Consoles have some advantages in terms of design that allow them to squeeze some extra performance out of older hardware, but they are unlikely to catch up to the PC market any time soon.
Typically, the A-List Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube titles look like arse compared to A-List PC titles running on nearly identical hardware (meaning 3-4 generation old graphics cards on the PC side) and don't even show up on the radar when compared to those same PC titles running on latest generation graphics cards at 1600x1200 with all the detail settings cranked. The next gen consoles are talking about being able to run in 720p (1280x720), but even if they could hit 1080i (1920x1080) remember that this not only requires you to have a $1500+ television (effectively bringing your console up to the cost of a upper-middle end PC), but you would be stuck with an interlaced signal again. And PC's are capable of even higher resolutions (though finding monitors that support them is difficult).
People have been predicting the death of PC gaming since it came into existence. It is doubtful that the PC market is going to die out. Diminish from time to time? Sure. Have less market share? Definitely. The ease of use, portability, and general lowest common denominator effect of consoles pretty much guarantees that they'll maintain (or expand) their already thoroughly dominant market share.
The Mac argument is not a terribly strong one. The UI is not significantly easier to use that of Windows XP to a novice non-computer user and really the UI is a moot point when we're talking about the ease of playing games. The input devices for a Mac are the same as those for a PC, the hardware has just as many problems as a PC from a major OEM like Dell. When compared to the overall PC market Mac's have less reliability problems, basically because you only have one source to choose from. In terms of gaming, Macs have all the worst of both worlds. Restrictive hardware, high cost, some reliability issues and cumbersome form factor for the living room. OS X has a gorgeous interface (again not necessarily more intuitive, but gorgeous) running on top of a pretty nice operating system and I really enjoy using it, but it isn't really a console killer. Nor is it a PC killer so long as Apple retains tight control over the hardware.
As always the greatest strength of the respective platforms are also their greatest weaknesses.
Once more unto the breach dear friends...
I'm not sure what fighting games you play (indeed I can't really think of any that have come out on the PC for a while), but the keyboard has always been terrible for anything since Way of the Exploding Fist, when moves weren't mapped to directions but combinations of buttons. Quite how you think using a keyboard is easier to pull off a special move like in any modern fighter dating since Street Fighter II is beyond me, notwithstanding the minimum six different attack buttons, you've got to worry about getting to 8 directional buttons. My hands just don't work that way. In terms of precision, joypads have digital inputs too, still easier to use than a keyboard, but don't allow for the dynamics of analogue input, different walk speeds, move strengths etc. Proper arcade sticks are of course preferable to recreate the arcade feel, but joypads are clearly a closer relative than a keyboard; ultimately being a scaled down handheld version of them. Also bear in mind that all joypads since the SNES have at least two shoulder buttons, so you're not mapping everything to your thumbs.
In terms of third person cameras, the one in Quake 3 is not a serious part of the game - there's no mechanic for aiming in the 3rd person, they're more of an irrelevant demo hack. Same goes for UT2k3/4. You just don't see that many 3rd person camera games on the PC because you've only got one analogue input method, the mouse.
The quality of the cameras on consoles is besides the point, there are as many good examples as there are bad examples, but they're used more because it's a different method than has been enabled by the inclusion of two seperate analogue directional input methods. It is used more in adventure style games where seeing the character perform certain tasks is part of the cinematic atmosphere. Just look at the Dreamcast with it's single analogue input, and noticeable lack of 3rd person 3D games for proof, you're pretty much stuck with a view locked behind the character until some form of cutscene frees it up.
Ultimately the mouse is more accurate for looking, but it's fairly trivial to modify the game mechanics such that it doesn't matter, very moderate auto-aim, or wider attack damage for example. It really doesn't affect the gameplay at all. IME the only people that really complain about joypads in FPS are those who've spent more time than is healthy with the keyboard/mouse combo, possibly the need to unlearn before they can relearn, or maybe simple annoyance that proficiency with the mouse really doesn't map immediately to proficiency with the analogue stick puts them off. Suddenly that FPS that was a piece of cake is frustratingly hard. The only other mechanic it suits better is point and click. Although opinions on control methods are subjective, I think you'll find the masses prefer a joypad for most genres out there, and this is shown by how much broader and numerous console titles are.
The final nail in the coffin for the mouse/keyboard is the singular lack of multiplayer support, without multiple units. LAN parties are fun and all that, but not really practical or convenient, and generally unfair, due to such varied levels of horsepower allowing greater framerates, or more highly detailed levels etc.
You will see keyboards plugged into PS2's, but only for communication. The Xbox will supposedly never see a keyboard, and what do you think the chances of Nintendo ever supporting one? It's not like consoles are incapable of supporting a keyboard at all, it's just that there is no demand for it.
In the next few years, we'll see how this plays out from a strategic point of view.
As things like OpenOffice mature, Linux becomes more ready for the desktop. But there's always been that, "Where are the games?" argument the Linux has had a hard time matching. Now that Microsoft is deprecating PC games in favor the the XBox, they're also chiseling away at the "Where are the games?" argument against Linux on the desktop.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Personally, I'm a little offended that Thief III was mentioned as a victim of the X-Box. It is still a darn good game despite being a dual-port.
Deus Ex: II sucked. It was HORRIBLE. Not only did it perform horribly, but the gameplay was scaled back A LOT. It didn't deserve the "Deus Ex" title; it was something else, something horribly WRONG. It DESERVES to be an example of dual-porting. But Thief III deserves more respect.
Performance:
Thief III ran slow, but faster than Deus Ex II. This is coming from someone with a P4 2.4 w/ Radeon 9800XT. But it ran fast enough to enjoy it (Thief is usually a slowpaced game). However, that performance in a SHOOTER would suck (which Thief III is not).
Gameplay:
The gameplay felt exactly like Thief I and II. Sneaking around, black jacking people, taking stuff, etc. It was great. The AI was "alright" (better than Deus Ex II, but could have been better). The funny conversations you overhear, the shadows (it was the first game I played where shadows actually MATTERED).
Complainst:
Map sizes. As in Deus Ex II, the maps were shrunk to fit the XBox requirements. But they were complex enough that the size didn't bother you (you could still get "lost" if you weren't paying attention).
Conclusion:
The game was fun, despite it's performance and map sizes.
PC gaming has another plus that hasn't been mentioned yet. That is, the muliplayer environment. Whereas with XBox Live! you will have to play with possibly some smacktardish stranger, or with a RL friend; with PC gaming, you can join a gaming community, and play on servers that have rules you like (finish objectives, no swearing, don't feed the pandas unless wearing a felt hat, whatever) and end up having IMHO, a MUCH better and more consistent multiplayer experience. As a consequence, you actually end up with a _community_ of people you enjoy playing with, not just a Russian Roulette style of multiplayer gaming where you _might_ play with someone you enjoy playing with.
That's one thing I realy can't stand about console games...the insanely low resolution. If I wanted to play my games at 512x384, I'd go back to my voodoo3 and P2 400MHz. ;) I always hear people say "well, (console here) runs better than the pc version". of course it does. look at the models, look at the environment, and look at the resolution.
I think the consoles have a HUGE advantage with their multiple controllers, they make gamming a social event. You can invite people over without being one of those nerds that carries their computer around to play games. Although, I'm sure there are console people out there who sit and play games by themselves all day.
But, we are lazy...so...in the end, the easiest will be the most popular.
It's not so much that the PC market is dwindling per se, such that the console market is GROWING AT A MASSIVE SCALE. In fact, it's already enormous. And it's not because the consoles are stealing gamers away from the PC, it's because the consoles are tapping into a demographic that would never even touch a PC. It has to do both with the types of games as well as the economics ($200 for a console vs. $1500 for a PC) and ergonomics (would you rather play NFL Street on your couch in front of the big screen tv, or at your desk in front of a 19" monitor?)
So, put yourself in microsoft's shoes 5 years ago. Consoles are booming, PC sales are flat, and you don't make any money from licensing. If you ask me, Microsoft did what they did because they had to. The writing is on the wall for PC gaming. Microsoft didn't kill it by making the Xbox. If anything, the PS2 is more to blame for the state of PC games.
Yes, Microsoft could have put their xbox marketing money (half a billion) into promoting PC gaming. But do you really think this would grow the market such that Microsoft would get that money back? Keep in mind that when you buy a PC game, Microsoft gets NOTHING. Microsoft only get's money when a gamer decides to purchase a copy of windows XP.
If microsoft had done all the things you mention, I propose that it would barely make a dent in the growth of the consoles. So why not try to take a piece of the console pie as well?
1 - X-Box is similar, but not yet structly portable in terms of code. The plan is to make Next Box and PC development easily trasnposable. This will be an excellent thing for developers and gamers both.
2 - X-Box development is still nigh impossible fomr a start-ups persepctive. You simply cannot get the dev kit as a start-up. PC development is the way into the marketplace.
3 - The more sophisticated PC Games get, the more expensive they are to make. A Triple A is 12-20 million $$ in dev costs. That is a HUGE gamble to take on a genre where barely 1 in 20 titles is successful. Think about it. As a console game you cover your bets and greatly reduce the chances of becoming the next Daikatana.
4 - MMORPGS, not the XBox, killed the PC RPG market. The glut of MMORPGS has killed development in a major category of PC development. This will sort itself out in 2 years with a massive die off. The market simply cannot support the number of MMORPGS in development. Several devs and publishers are going to lose BIG.
5 - It's a Mature Console Market: During a mature console market, the emphasis is always on maximizing software return on the platform while the PC beings to move seriously ahead and the tech gap becomes massive. Relax. Next year the generation AFTER Doom3 and HL2 will be on the horizon. 2 million polygon models - real time.
6- Next Gen is Coming: Games like Unreal 3 and Dragon Age are going to be making the consoles look like gameboys. No serious game will suggest otherwise. Relax. It's a product cycle.
.Robert
Lowly Nintendo? It's funny how people tend to bash Nintendo in praise of Sony on such a regular basis.
Nintendo makes just as many great games as Sony does, they just don't release 50 shelf fillers in between like Sony. Open your eyes.