Slashdot Mirror
Will Next-Gen Consoles Kill Off PC Gaming?
An anonymous reader writes "CNET is predicting that next-generation consoles will drive the final nails into the already half-closed coffin of mainstream PC gaming. The root of their argument isn't one of power, but of price: 'The bottom line is that console manufacturers often heavily subsidize their new machines, swallowing huge losses up front in hopes that they'll make it all back selling games... Other things being equal, the DIY-heavy PC gaming industry can't hope to compete in that kind of market.' Which is to say that once the 18-34 demographic starts buying $400 PS3s instead of $400 video cards, developers may have no choice but to follow suit." Will there still be a market for PC games, or are the graphics of the next generation of consoles going to make PC games unnecessary?
Lets put it this way:
Consoles will take over PC gaming when they get the advantages of PC Gaming like bigger harddrives, better memory, better quality graphics...
And to get that, what do they have to be? Modern day PCs with rigid hardware. Basically a laptop.
I'm guessing within the next 5 generations, the console and PC market will converge...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I'd just like to mod this article -1 Flamebait.
Thank you,
Slashdot Reader
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
IMHO, the problem has never been about price, performance or convience (well, maybe a little). Its been mainly about titles. What games are actually available and if those games are solely for a specific platform. In the early 80s, Ataris were nice, but lost their luster with the availability of the C64. In the late 80s, most of the best games available where for the console systems, in the early 90s we started to see a switch back to computers and when Doom came out, it seemed like everyone was picking up a PC. Then Quake came out and with the Internet boom everyone bought new computers. Now people are going back to consoles because there are so many good games there that aren't available for computers. If someone made a game for Linux that really kicked ass, I imagine that suddenly a lot of people would be running Linux. Take for instance, Frozen Bubble. Great game play and highly addictive, got a lot of people to use Linux who didn't before.
This can be especially said of the 18-34 demographic which surprisingly always seems to have the money to get something that they really want. Like a new $400 video card to play Half-Life 2.
Someone needs to write a unique and really great game that is only available for Linux.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well,
There are games that make sense on a console (driving sims, fighting games, etc.) and games that work better on a PC (first person shooters (arguable), MMORPGs, RTS, etc.). I know that personally, I will want to have both for the forseeable future. I love driving on my high def TV, but I despise playing first person shooters on the console, due to the lack of control.
People are always trying to be the first to drive a nail in some coffin. In this case, it is highly premature, IMO.
Willie
But they'll drive another nail in the coffin...it's cheaper for developers to put out games for one or two hardware configurations rather than trying to optimize for for hundreds of potential configurations. Further, they can easily set a higher price point...most new PC games I get are around 29.99 or 39.99 USD, as opposed to 49.99 for most console games I purchase...
The big hope for PC gaming is open source games and modding...but even that is, as yet, still pretty unproven - outside of CounterStrike, of course.
"How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
Will there still be a market for PC games
Yes.
or are the graphics of the next generation of consoles going to make PC games unnecessary?
No.
when somebody builds a user-upgradeable console.
I don't want a console or appliance or what is really a second, specialized PC. I also would like to be able to play my old DOS-based games (Red Baron, various Star Treks, Dawn Patrol and the like) on my exising PC without having to jump through a thousand hoops to do it.
You know, you can buy video cards that are well under $100 that have enough power to play any PC game out there. Only a fool spends $400 on a video card for their home gaming rig.
PC games are about a lot more than just the graphics. And there are still going to be a lot of people who own a PC- to do PC things, who wont own a console. PC games may not be the top money maker but they will still be around for a long time.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Because a year after the console is released, when its hardware is now old-spec and new PC hardware is still right at the bleeding edge, the PC will out-game the console.
Two years after the console is released it'll be an even wider difference, and 3 years after it'll be incomparable
Consoles will have kill PC gaming not because of what they can do, but because of what they lack: A mouse. Microsoft has said it has no intension of making one and I think I heard Sony say the same. If you are a gamer you know that first person shooters are pretty much unplayable on consoles. The only way I'm buying UT 2007 on an xbox is if they have a mouse with it. How the hell am I supposed to aim across the map with a fking analog stick?
I had an Intellivision and then an Atari 2600. After that, I felt that if it deserved to be a computer game, it deserved to be on a computer. Then, over the past few years, it became a headache. My wife would buy some new game and I knew that I would have to spend a few hours downloading updates and configuring it to work properly. I just got sick of it and bought a PS2. Now, you just pop in the disk and play - no driver updates and no configuration. I think that the ease-of-use will be a major factor in getting people to move from PC to console.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
That a PC can do that a console can't. But what really, consoles just keep getting closer and closer to just being PCs. I mean with everything I have heard about the new Xbox it is just a dumbed down PC. It really does seem like a convergence of such and maybe this type of convergence will make it easier for developers to create for PC and console.
Now that's a death ray!
I ran Half-Life 2 on my 1600x1200 flat panel at its native resolution with no problems on my Radeon 9600 Pro (128MB). I paid more than $100 for it at the time, but it now sells for about $75-$80 on Newegg.
When the PS2 was launched you couldn't find one to buy for close to six months, because it was priced too low and demand far outstriped production. Sony doesn't want to make that mistake again. Hard core gamers are willing to pay 400 to be the first on the bock with the latest system. six months later drop the price $50 and get the slightly less hardcore, repeat untill you hit market saturation.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
In order to get the full value of the graphics from these consoles, one will require a hi def TV, and those ain't cheap!
The PC section was relegated to a tiny hallway in the basement. PC gaming, such as it is, will be gone in two years time. Consoles have the power now. PCs no longer to be any faster than a 450Mhz box to surf the net and run mail. It's finished. My two and a half year old P4 3.2 is still considered a high end machine. Back in the day, you could squeeze 2 years out of a box, max. Sure, the ati 9800 pro could use an upgrade, but I can still get almost $120 for it on ebay.
The next gen consoles have just as much power, now the only real difference is the interface. I prefer keyboard/mouse over the controller for first person shooters, but that's about it. If I can have fun with Halo, I can have fun in Half Life 2. It isn't financially feasible to code for so many platforms, one of them has to give. Aloha, pc gaming. It was nice to know you. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
I'd be really curious to find out what details were on while you were running this?
~S
You know, some people value visual quality enough to justifiably shell out the money without being fools. You're correct in your assessment that cheap cards exist for casual gamers, but then you decided to be a jerk.
Console gaming is for those who just want a plug-and-play gaming experience at a reasonable cost.
PC gaming is never going to go away. Simply put, there is an installed base of several hundred million users. Is any rational CEO of a software company (gaming or otherwise) simply going to pack up and leave all that money on the table? Absolutely not.
to get console (640x480) graphics, you can use a frickin on-board vga chipset.
... hi bingo
I know there are people who like to have the best at any cost. But really, by the time you hit the $200 mark, you're already pretty close to the top of the line. The differences between the $200 and the $400 video card are pretty small.
Marketing.
( I'm not certain about which direction, though. Does marketing make a 100 dollar card seem to be worth 400? Or does marketing allow a 1000 dollar console to be sold for 400? The answer is probably both. )
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Other things being equal, the DIY-heavy PC gaming industry can't hope to compete in that kind of market. Which is to say that once the 18-34 demographic starts buying $400 PS3s instead of $400 video cards, developers may have no choice but to follow suit.
A $400 video card is a red herring. They are only for early adopters who want to win pissing contests. The latest games are written to run well on far more modest cards. A DIY'er could buy a $150 video card when building the system and then upgrade to a different $150 card 18-24 months later and not miss out on any games. Been there, done that. In comparison my console is stuck in time for 5 years.
Also some games just seem to work much better on PCs, RTS for example. Even with games that do work well on consoles, FPS for example, my personal feeling is that FPSs designed to work on both PCs and consoles seemed "dumbed down" compared to FPSs that were designed to work only on PCs.
I'm sure others will mention the more obvious reasons why PC gaming will not die so I'll only mention an offbeat on. It is a much easier market to enter. A startup can develop a game and market it themselves. No need to get blessings from some arbitrary authority.
PC gaming will only go away when PCs themselves go away.
And in that time PC game titles have seriously declined in both in quanitity and quality relative to console game titles. The question now is will this slide continue? Have we reached the inflection point? (The point where the average console game is better than the average PC game. How much shelf space is dedicated to console games versus PC games.)
In my opinion, being on the cusp of three new consoles we are now at the inflection point and while PC gaming will always be around in some form, however small, the days of dominance technically and in mindshare are behind us.
Don't worry though, people still listen to 8 tracks and enjoy themselves, people still write on typewriters and get the job done. Plenty of people continue with their chosen technology well beyond its "death" so I'm sure in 20 there will still be people playing games on PCs, but they will be few and far between in comparison to people using a specialized console of one sort or another.
My father in law spends a lot more than that on a golf club... Hell, the greens fees here are over $300 (with a discount).
If you can't afford it, sure, it's a waste. If you can, and this is how you choose to enjoy yourself, why not?
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
wow... you must really enjoy the upgrade treadmill... me, I enjoy the fact that a game for my console will work... and I don't have to piss about finding the latest drivers for my hardware or downloading a massive patch for the game a few weeks after the release...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Do not worry my friend. As a fellow Radeon 9600 Pro owner, your shame^H^H^H^Hecret is safe with me.
-- Dan
Until they sell a mouse, no FPS on a console will be superior to that on the PC, the control is just more adaptable and precise w/ keyboard and mouse, its what i live for! muwuahhaha
You can get a $100 video card that will be able to play most any current gen game out there. But if you also want it to look good, you're gonna want to spend more than that. If you want it to look really good, you're gonna have to spend even more.
For some people it isn't just about being able to run a game, but to run it well; to see the stunning visuals they advertised.
Console gaming is for those who just want a plug-and-play gaming experience at a reasonable cost.
PC gaming is never going to go away. Simply put, there is an installed base of several hundred million users. Is any rational CEO of a software company (gaming or otherwise) simply going to pack up and leave all that money on the table? Absolutely not.
And it is less costly and complicated to devellop for PC than for console, you don't have the console approval process to get through, which means less hassle, and less last minutte polishing: Patch it later.
You can do whatever you want on PC, but with console makers, you always have the stress that they might be hard on you this time, force you to change trivial details before resubmitting, making you miss your printing window, etc.
You can't take the sky from me...
Current consoles could never replace PC's. They just were not full-featured enough or really had the abilities PC's do.
But both the PS3 and Xbox 360 will have HD's, wireless network cards, and all sorts of standard ports (for keyboards and mice). Combine this with much higher standard resoltion output and you have something that COULD replace a PC. I am pretty sure this is both Microsoft and SOnys intention this time around, it remains to be seen if this bogeyman of integration treats them well. I mean the PS3 is a computer that you can hook a keyboard two and hook into TWO 1080p displays! Only higher end computer users are running with comparible resolutions today, and it can make whatever "desktop" they have you use look pretty sharp.
The really interesting thing is that if people are playing all thier games on PC's, then the "PC" in your message above can REALLY be a PC - as in personal computer, not a Windows box. It makes it FAR easier for people to buy and use Macs or Linux desktops, and even really more likley since they will not face the problems Windows users have. Moving games onto dedicated hardware for the masses could really lead to a huge platform shift.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Many of the games that are being made for multi platforms are dumming down games, for the consoles. A great example of this is DesEx 2. Most console games dont have the depth of a good PC game, most likely thats what will keep the market alive. And dont forget about RTS the console cant do them right (but would like to see a verion of AOE for DS, and Simcity)
Consoles will take over PC gaming when they get the advantages of PC Gaming like bigger harddrives, better memory, better quality graphics...
Why do you need a bigger HD for gaming? You do not, as long as game loading times are not noticable it does not matter. The HD can act as a local cache and if you can store 30 games+ worth of save data what more do you need?
As for the other things - look at the specs. The consoles have super-fast RAM, and don't need as much because there's no OS to support. 512MB console ram is like 720MB (or more) PC RAM, and like I said is WAY faster as well. As for quality graphics, the PS3 graphics chip (according to nVidia) is like two top of the line GeForce Ultras! The XBox 360 is not that much different either. And the PS3 will support two 1080p displays, roughly equivilent to what top-end gamers today run at - never mind that the majority of the population is proboably running games at 1024x768.
The next round of consoles is where they finally take a leap over PC capabilites and offer significant ease of use benefits.
It's not going to take five generations, try a year.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Funny, I usually classify someone as a fool if they ever use the term 'gaming rig' in a non-ironic way.
:)
I know, right?? When will these people learn?
The proper term is "Wintendo".
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Why video cards cost 400 dollars when you can get a WHOLE CONSOLE with DVD drive and custom hardware for the same price?
For one thing, console makers subsidise these boxes heavily so the PS3 and XBox 360 may well sell at $100-$200 losses to start with.
The other reason is this - when nVidia makes a new card for the PC market, do they know how many they will sell? No. So they have to price the card high to make it worthwhile to pay for initial manufacturing and R&D costs.
With GFX chips for something like the PS3 and XBox 360 they know the chips they will make will go into the millions in production! And for the PS3 Sony seemed to help them with manufacturing setup at they are using the "Sony 90nm process".
Lastly there is complexity. With a PC video card the card itself must hadle all of the supporting circutry to work in a PC, as well as cooling. For consoles all of that is baked into the console design so the GFX chip is really just a chip, and thus cheaper as there is no card to design around the whole thing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The problem with that is, it doesnt sell the maximum number of games. That's where the profit is.
The more consoles out there, the more games can be sold when they come out. It's in the munfacturer's interest to sell as many consoles as fast as they can produce them to get the games sales.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
Anothing thing to remember is, if you already have a decently fast PC, the video card is the only *additional* cost needed to upgrade it to a gaming PC. Although consoles will probably pick up features like web surfing, email, and media players, the non-gaming features of a PC are still more useful, enough to justify its purchase alone.
The next-generation will be even more dramatic, both in the disappointing launch titles, and in the shocking improvement over the next 5 years.
PCs will always be anchored by widespread adoption of legacy systems, but this can be an advantage for them. The next-generation of console games will cost so much money to develop and cost so much to the consumer, that this opens up a big market in low-cost not-bleeding-edge PC gaming. That's the direction I see their future going.
After all, there are many more PCs than consoles in the world.
There goes the usual /. response again: "You know, you can buy video cards that are well under $100 that have enough power to play any PC game out there. Only a fool spends $400 on a video card for their home gaming rig."
Know what? I bought the BFG 6800 Ultra when it first came out and Half-Life 2 running in 1600x1200 on my LCD display looks friggin awesome with all of the eye candy turned on. In fact, all games look awesome compared to when I used to play them with my old $100 card. Don't knock it just because you can't afford it.
I guess the next gen of consoles having standard USB ports will probably help the adoption of support for these types of input.
The only sad part of that is the possiblilty that you're going to have to keep up with the best of devices in order to compete if you do online multiplayer. One of the nicer aspects to playing Halo 2 on Live is that you can be pretty sure that everyone is on the same playing field.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
The price of PC gaming isn't arguable if there are good fun games. In the last year, everything has pretty much sucked. I go to EB with cash in hand LOOKING for something to play, practically begging. Nada.
I have not, historically, enjoyed console gaming. I'm more of a private gamer than a social one. The PC is where I want to be, but when Quake 4 comes out I'm probably not going to upgrade my video card again because for the same price I can put an xb360 on the 50inch and send my wife to her mother's for the weekend.
But that card would have been around $300 if you would have bought it in anticipation of HL2. I *almost* bought that very card. Then I took a step back and said to myself "Are you nuts?". I knew in a year or two the card would be half the price, the game would be fully tested, and I wouldn't be missing out on anything. In fact, the game release was delayed several more months, and by the time it came out the card was $100 cheaper. I am sure there were gamers all over that were kicking themselves. Or probably more likely, cursing Valve for some reason. I still haven't bought the game, and am not sure I want to with the whole Steam debacle.
I got Half-Life only 3 years ago. It was "old" by gaming standards. But I could play it with my cheap hardware, there were walkthoughs online for when I got stuck, and as soon as I finished I was able to install and play several user-mods that were a blast. For me, it was worth the wait. I don't get the whole buy-it-at-12:01-on-release-date mentality.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If you're broke and can't spend the money, then don't. But don't call me a fool because I want everything I run to be very nice and fluid.
Especially because my LCD native is 1920x1200, I want a high end card. I won't pay $1000 on one, but I did pay close to $400 for my BFG 6800GT card when they first came out.
Now, I can skip at least one new major GPU release from both ATI and nVidia, and still have plenty of power to play the games, if I wanted to. Sure, I could buy a $200 card now, and then another $200 in another year.. Might as well pay $400 now and have cutting edge for awhile, right?
Every time a new game console hits the market, there's another story about how it will kill PC gaming. It's not going to happen. It never has, and it never will.
When the first Xbox and the PS2 hit the shelves, they were touted as "PC Game killers" just the same. The hardware was strong and easily could compete with what PC's had going at the time. Then, six months passed, and PC games easily out-gunned consoles in terms of sound, graphics, and speed.
Will anything be different this time around? I don't think so. The XBox 360 has three PowerPC chips in it, or a multi-core CPU, or whatever. It's got a (currently) top of the line ATI chip in it for video. This machine will be very cool, but multi-core CPU's and SLI technologies are already making strong headway on PC's now.
Do you really think the Xbox 360 will be more powerful then a high end PC a year later? I don't.
Don't get me wrong, I like game consoles. I've owned the Xbox for a long time, and I still use it (although this could be because it's modded and a modded xbox is the shit) and there's some games that are only fun if you play them on a gamepad in front of the TV with some friends.
PC Gaming will be around for as long as people keep buying PC's for gaming. Visit any of the big PC gaming forums and you'll find the most active (albiet annoying) forums on the Internet.
No, the PC games will keep coming.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
That reminds me that it would not be enough to shell out $400 for a PS3 to get the quality.
You will need to shell out another $2K - $8K for a high definition TV (that still will be like 1300x800) if you do not have one.
And you will be tied to a 3-ton TV installation.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I haven't gotten my super-duper PC game out yet! PC gaming can't die!
Really, developing for consoles seems to be a rather specialized endeavor best suited to established game companies. What of the little guy? Carmack wouldn't have written Doom for a console.
On the other hand, people will develop for what they have. I'd happily develop for a Cell processor if I had a cheap (Free/free preferrably) development environment for it.
Start Running Better Polls
Let's see you console do full 1080i on a $100 TV.
Even $5K TV will only give you 1380x780 or something.
Seen as a package High Def TV + console vs PC , PC is cheaper even with a $400 card.
And you STILL need to get a PC at home, even after you paid for a console and its overpriced games.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Way to miss the entire point of consoles. The fixed platform is what makes consoles as powerful as they are. Every developer knows that every copy of their product will run on the platform because every unit is the same. There is no need to program in fallback code to make the product run on video cards that don't support all of the whiz-bang grapics, or to deal with systems at the bottom edge of working.
Look at the GRand Theft Auto games. Look at what kind of PC you need to get those to run and then look at the PS2. In PC standards the PS2 is a laughable pile of crap. But it runs games that need significantly more power tio run on the PC. Why? Because the hardware is fixed and programmers can write to the metal.
If you want an upgradable console buy a PC.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
The biggest gripe I had with Sony and the PS2 was that the hardware was absolute shit. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/home_electronics/so ny_play.html
My unit needs regular cleanings to be at all playable, which would cost me $90 and a trip to the factory. As it is, I've voided the warranty and cracked it open a number of times to clean the lens. What's the point of cheaper hardware if you have to ship it off to the factory every 3 months? Longest lasting PC I've ever owned *still* runs, and we bought it when it was new. It's a Sony VAIO, with a Pentium 200 in it. Everything works. And what's the point of having 200+ FPS on a console when regular televisions (NTSC) can only process 29.99 frames per second? I'd rather pay the extra $250 and purchase a solid, dependable set of parts that I can assemble myself, be assured that they wont break down, and have some options in the visuals.
Why assume that all a gamer wants is graphics? I'm not going to go into the graphics over gameplay argument, but I will argue that a mouse is a much more versatile HID for first-person shooters than a puny little joystick any day.
So, to conclude my rant, I'm just going to say that being able to customize my system, have reliable equipment, and the versatility of a computer, I'm willing to spend about $300-$400 more on a computer, than on a console.
SRSLY.
First of all, ignore Yahoo! games etc., because that's a different market, and no one buys a PC specifically for Yahoo! Games (I hope).
1. You need A-list titles like Half-Life to sell PC gaming rigs, garner interest, make big money.
2. The last half-life took YEARS to develop, and there's nothing wrong with the development team.
3. Game graphics will flat-line to the point you can't tell real TV from videogame TV.
4. The new consoles are on High-Def- often higher Def than computers.
5. More people are buying laptops.
6. Game and computer companies are getting serious about IP, and the computer is their weak point. You can't copy anything on a console. How many original copies of Starcraft are left? When it's so much easier to pirate computer games and get the same experience, it really diminishes profits and enthusiasm. Even Blizzard is moving to consoles. That's also why online games are popular with publishers- besides the subscription prices, you can't play without paying.
I think real PC gaming is done. My friends still play Starcraft, all own PS2s, don't want to learn the difference between NVidia and ATI, AMD FX and Intel EE, or spend hours setting up LANs, toting computers around, troubleshooting technical problems. Once the A-list titles disappear, the investment goes elsewhere, and this is already happening.
You're not a fool, but you're on the wrong side.
I heartily agree with you in reference to flying, fighting and driving games. The console controllers are far superior to anything specifically designed for the PC. Thankfully they make handy adapters or else my bf1942 flying skills would have remained elusive I'm sure.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
So let me get this straight...
Someone who waits a year or two to save money on a video card is making a good buy. Yeah, I can agree to that as long as the person doesn't care about waiting a year or two.
Someone who buys a nice video card today to play games that come out today are responsible for all the horrible marketing that goes on and are just plain idiots for buying nice stuff. Errr, you lost me there.
How about this:
-If you want to wait a year or two to buy a video card, that's cool as long as you don't mind waiting. You aren't any better/smarter than anyone else, you just don't mind waiting. You'll most likely spend your money on something else in the meantime.
-If you DON'T want to wait a year or two to buy a video card, that's cool too as long as you don't mind paying a higher price. You aren't any better/smarter than anyone else, you just like gaming enough to spend the money. You'll most likely spend less money on other things because you have a strong interest in gaming.
You know... maybe we could all try and not be assholes? Just a thought.
PC gamers drive the video card industry, it's the reason we have geforce 6800's and anti x800's vs the original geforce card or voodoo cards. If people won't buy those new cards why put research into them? I suppose that the video card companies could just focus on consoles every 5 years and create some new business model, but I doubt that would even work. Much of their research into video cards for high end pc's ends up in consoles, so how is that going to work when they aren't designing cards for high end pc's? We wouldn't see the same rate of progress in terms of video card technology. All those console lovers better hope and pray that computer gaming stays around for a long time to come.
"You know... maybe we could all try and not be assholes? Just a thought."
;-)
Woh wohhhh.... slowdown cowboy. That is asking a lot for slashdot....
jason
That's a common misconception. 25 is (for most people) the minimum frame rate that can be used to produce what looks like motion. The higher the frame rate, the smoother the apparent motion.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Valid points, but do you seriously believe the AVERAGE or MAJORITY of console users have that many problems with their units? Above and beyond the time/hassle they would otherwise spending futzing with windows update, graphics drivers, install hassles, virus/spyware, and all the other headaches that come with PC ownership?
Yeah, the mouse is a better HID for FPS'es... if that is all you play then sure, you probably won't get much out of consoles.
I'm a former PC gaming snob that has partially converted to consoles. I game on both, and have come to appreciate the many advantages of consoles.
You can rant all you want, but the fact is, for the whole system, consoles are cheaper, and that simple economic fact will drive their continued popularity. What are you going to buy your kid for gaming - a $1000+ notebook, or a PS2/XBOX? In the future, will it be easier for consoles to absorb PC functionality, or for PC's to get easier and cheaper?
First off, I didn't say you were an idiot, I said "maybe you are a sucker".
Maybe you are so caught up in being a good little consumer that you'd be willing to spend a couple hundred extra for a disproportionate amount of performance. Maybe you can afford it, maybe you save up for it, I don't really care. There is just such a "must have it now" attitude that I think is just silly. It's hype, it's fluff. Gaming is just part of it, not the whole problem. The gaming industry has certainly succumbed to the wiles of the marketing droids. Xbox 360 launch on MTV? Ha. Things don't stand on their own merit, they stand on how well they can be sold. Things may LAST on their own merit, but nowadays everything seems to be gauged on how much it can sell within the first week or month. Admittedly, tech people usually look at things with a more critical eye, but not always.
Look, you don't have to wait a year or two to buy a video card that will play the latest games. You can buy several right now. Will you buy one that is a year old or the latest and greatest in order to get that extra 5 fps? I think it isn't just the 5 fps, it is some kind of chest-puffing bragging rights. To me that just doesn't make sense. Sorry you feel I am an asshole for pointing all this out, I guess I touched a nerve. If you really didn't care, you would say "I spend my money on what I want to spend it on" and leave it at that.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The differences between the $200 and the $400 video card are pretty small.
Yeah... about 3 months.
The problem with consoles, is you have a few buttons to use and that's it. Even with add-on controllers, it's not nearly as customizable as a PC games controls.
I'd hate to play some of the stuff I play on my PC on a console. Ick. Plus, the graphics seem better on my PC (even with an older video card).
PC gaming will survive just fine. Most of the damage has already been done--games brain damaged in cross-development.
;) That's an extra special brain twitch many /. folk have.
"First of all, ignore Yahoo! games etc., because that's a different market"
Agreed, though it's worth keeping in mind. I play Tangleword or Wordyacht most every night. Free, word based, definitely requiring PC.
"1. You need A-list titles like Half-Life to sell PC gaming rigs, garner interest, make big money."
PC will continue to slip but won't bottom out. It'll always be the only source for some niche games like flight sims (same as fighters are console only). Yet to play an FPS on a console where I didn't want to through the controller across the room from combined frustration with auto-targeting, squished verticals, and save points.
"2. The last half-life took YEARS to develop, and there's nothing wrong with the development team."
And?
"3. Game graphics will flat-line to the point you can't tell real TV from videogame TV."
Sure. On the NEXT-next generation of consoles.
"4. The new consoles are on High-Def- often higher Def than computers."
I'll believe it when I see it with decent frame rates. Should happen a couple years into next console generation when developers have mastered the new equipment. For late released titles on current set it largely boils down to art direction: some games look really good Big (resolution aside) and most look better on a PC if given a decent port.
"5. More people are buying laptops."
And?
"6. Game and computer companies are getting serious about IP, and the computer is their weak point. You can't copy anything on a console."
Point taken, though I'd reverse it: I know many who are moving to console version of cross-platform games *because of* the protection on PC games. Also know a couple people who gave up playing PC games entirely because it was so much easier to download and burn all PS2 & XBOX games.
"I think real PC gaming is done. My friends still play Starcraft"
Equivalent to saying, "Console gaming is done because all my friends are still playing with their N64's."
"You're not a fool, but you're on the wrong side."
To your credit, you're not claiming open source triple-A titles will save PC gaming.
I don't disagree PC gaming has taken a hit. I do think it ridiculous to imagine it a body blow.
For the PC, consider:
1) PC's are used for other things. All the non-game functions touted by the upcoming consoles are available to any $499 (monitor included) Dell slimline, plus the online play without ongoing fees. Plus same system does online billing, Yahoo! games, etc.
2) PC games are generally cheaper.
3) Mods are important. Yes, consoles are (very slowly) moving in this direction--but they're also picking up the patching and bugginess that is PC games' worst "feature".
4) Indie developers or new kids in their Russian parents' bedrooms can knock out a PC game without the millions required to dev kit and release a console title. Do most suck? Sure! but not all. More and more the PC (perhaps running Linux) will be the birthing ground of the new talent.
5) MMORPGs are the world of PCs. Love 'em or hate 'em. I mostly hate, A Tale in the Desert aside--come say hi there. Wait! that's an indie title! and revolutionary. See #4.
New generation of consoles will steal the thunder, PC will bounce back in a couple years. Maybe not bounce as high as before but it'll happen. Same as last time. And the time before...
Feeling so good natured I could drool