Slashdot Mirror
Will Consoles Merge Back Into PCs?
GamePolitics is running an interview with Randy Stude, president of the PC Gaming Alliance, discussing the future of gaming on the PC and the console. Stude has some interesting thoughts regarding the long-term viability of stand-alone consoles:
"The guts of every console should tell you that the capability is there for the PC to act as the central point for all the consoles. If you bought a PC and as part of that equation you said, Okay, when you're on the phone with Dell, 'Hey, Dell, on this PC, this new notebook I'm buying, can you make sure it has the PlayStation 4 option built into it?' Well, why not? Why shouldn't that be the case? [Sony is] certainly not making any money on the hardware. I mean, can't they create a stable enough environment to specify that if Dell's going to sell that notebook and say that it's PlayStation 4 [compatible] that it must have certain ingredients and it must meet certain criteria? Absolutely they could [do] that. Are they going to do it? I don't know. I predict that they will. I predict that all of the console makers over time will recognize that it's too expensive to develop the proprietary solution and recognize the value of collapsing back on the PC as a ubiquitous platform."
Never gonna happen.... I simply can't see that ever happening. It would at least partially mean that companies like Sony or Nintendo need to build components and allow interoperability with what is essentially an open platform. It means releasing control, they won't do that.
Besides, consoles are mostly played at the TV and installed in a fixed way like a DVD Player. It is simply convenient. Connecting a laptop to your TV? Cumbersome!
I personally think that PC gaming is on the way out except for a few niches. My brother bought GTA4, and we simply can't get to run it on his 2 year old PC. He now faces the choice: pay about 1500€ for a new rig in order to play GTA4 at acceptable rates. Or spend +/-450€ on a PS3 and buy the game again....
I recommended him to get the PS3.... Throw in a USB mouse and a USB keyboard and he can play like he is used to.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I guess this is a possibility for the future - I can see the advantage for the console manufacturers, but it worries me that there is a trend towards licensing hardware.
The console manufacturers make money because it is difficult to copy their games - as opposed to on the hardware, as stated in the article. So they can mark up the price of the games, and make it necessary for game developers to have their games licensed. But the beauty of my PC is that I can run whatever I want on it. I won't be impressed if my PC manufacturer suddenly want to charge me to use the full capability of the machine that he has sold me!
...because one of the primary reasons people buy consoles is that it is both cheaper than a gaming PC and, for a lot of people, easier to set up. Having that as an option with a PC is going to most assuredly complicate things and raise the cost dramatically. Losing money selling the consoles is something the companies have accepted anyway, because they expect to make up the money through licensing fees/royalties and other sources.
I honestly could see the reverse happening though. Hell, it already is happening to a degree with the PS3 (although most people never use it as a PC and that certainly isn't a major factor in PS3 sales). The only major player I could see not doing it (at least for a while) would be Nintendo, since they are traditionally (not counting the networking features of the Famicom) conservative about adding non-gaming related features to their machines.
Ironically, though, the biggest weakness of consoles (that they are "closed boxes") is also their greatest strength and, I believe the reason why this article is wide of the mark.
After all, with a console, you buy a game, you go home, you stick it in the drive and you play the game. Even with Sony's best efforts to thwart that on the PS3 by demanding firmware updates every 10 minutes, the system hasn't changed much. By contrast, two of the last 4 PC games I bought (Spore and Far Cry 2) have required me to faff around with drivers before they would run. Now, sure, I'm a reasonably advanced user by the standards of the general public (though a veritable neophyte in slashdot terms), but this is awkward and irritating.
There's also the price issue. A console will set you back a few hundred dollars, but you then don't need to replace it for 4-5 years. A gaming PC will set you back at least twice as much (and frequently more) and will generally be obsolete within two and a half years, unless you're willing to sink a lot of money into interim upgrades.
Now, even if you get around the ease-of-use issue by basically putting a console inside the PC (anybody remember the old Mega-PC, which had a Megadrive/Genesis inside a PC case?) you are still going to be in a situation where the thing is locked into a piece of hardware with a far faster obsolescence cycle.
This is before you even start to get into ergonomic issues, such as the fact that the general usage pattern is that people use PCs with a monitor at a desk, but play console games on their TV while sat on the sofa.
is an environment that users can't screw up. If you move these systems onto a computer, they are then going to have to compete with background processes eating up CPU cycles, malware, and the occasional stupid user. I can't imagine why console manufacturer would want to deal with that kind of stuff. Wouldn't it then just become a computer game that you can't play with out first purchasing a "PS3 License"?
Previously you had all sorts of different arcade systems, first they were game specific hardware, then you had "systems" per manufacturer (Sega System 16 etc.), and today everyone just builts their arcade games around standard PC hardware, some are even running Windows.
Except the draw of consoles is A) graphics on big-ass televisions, and B) no hardware upgrade costs. They're consistent across all users, no complications. Why go back to PCs?
1) The games industry is already shifting away from the PC to closed platforms like consoles because they claim they make more profit due to not having the piracy issues they get on the PC. To them, this would be seen as a step backwards.
2) If one company manages to screw up the latest console plugin does the company want to be associated with that- Microsoft owned up to the original RROD problems and put money aside to deal with it, they've resolved the issues but to this day get slated for the problem. Would they really want to put themselves in a position where the latest Dell notebook has poor venting around Dell's hardware design is making their component fail and they get the blame for it? It's one thing if it's their fault, but if it's a 3rd party's fault and they risk the blame?
3) Do they really want to spend money offering support to the various hardware developers that want to implement their addons? Do they want to deal with compatibility issues? Do they want to spend and money time keeping their systems secure whilst keeping them open enough to integrate?
Long reply: No.
Because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo love to have his locked down platform where can do anything. And the PC architecture is everything but good. And people want the "easy to use"-ism that consoles provide.
Maybe could evolve to become more like a Mac, but that is.
-Woof woof woof!
PC's are too "open" for the comfort of many industries. By moving focus to more restrictive consoles, companies regain their control. Once they have control, the ability to push ads you can't block, monitor what you're doing for marketing, and limit what you are allowed to do or not do with media, consoles will eventually come full-circle so that users will eventually be using them for the same things PC users have been, only in safe, friendly, controlled environment.
Suckers.
So its the console makers funding the malware bot networks to make PCs so crap :) ahhhhhhhhhhhh
Closed system suck tho. And making a PC with cheapest parts + $99 video card can be done cheaper than a ps3, especially outside USA, and thats the key here, OUTSIDE usa, where its a known fact that those corps like to sell in USA low, and over charge outside to make americans feel special.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
First of all, there will always be gaming on desktops/laptops. People who say that PC gaming will collapse and end are absolutely wrong. For as long as there have been computers, one of the many uses people have put them to is gaming. As long as there are computers, there will be games for them.
As for the console market collapsing back to PCs, I don't know. Anything is possible. And it's impossible to tell the future. But he makes a very good point.
The projected longevity of the PS3 is what, 10 years? That's a relatively long time in the computer world. And like someone else said, there is little money to be made in hardware.
All you have to do is create a standard. This computer is PS4-Capable. As for the closed-nature of consoles... All Sony has to do is create a "PS4" OS that you have to buy to install, or a software environment required to play their games. Charge a fee and require a registration, and you have a "virtual console" that can be installed on any PS4-capable machine.
All you need is the PS4 Gaming Software and a USB-controller, and you're in business.
Perhaps we'll see console manufacturers putting off-the-shelf PC hardware into a plastic box with a proprietory opperating system and a patented brand name and calling it a console. Wait a minute...
Cortina
Look at the PS3. You can turn it into a PC if you so choose. The choice is already there. I just think Stude has it wrong on how it will happen.
The far more likely situation I would think is that you'd have a DRM locked console with a virtualized PC running on top where you could run anything you want. You'd have a simple "game mode/PC mode" switch to not mess with what they already have. It wouldn't do much for gaming, but it'd run pretty much all the basic utilities of a home PC without needing a separate box.
I think it could be a valuable supplement to those that only have a laptop, which is quite many these days. Sure it might sound a little odd writing a letter on your huge livingroom TV but I'd rather go with a 40"+ TV and a full-sized wireless keyboard than the laptop. Obviously if you have a proper desktop that's better, but many don't.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And where exactly would a person use a keyboard and mouse in their living room? Certainly not on their lap. Probably the only choice is to pull up your coffee table and crouch over to use the controls. Highly awkward to say the least. This is the reason PC gaming will never die. Some games can only comfortably be played at your computer desk.
This is going to be like the whole debate with thin client and fat client, centralized vs. decentralized computing, etc. It's always going to go back and forth.
Back in the PSX and PS2 era, it became stupid to try to keep up with PC gaming. A really good video card would cost as much as a proper console and the console would remain playable far longer whereas the computer would become outdated far more quickly. Game on consoles, work on computers, no-brainer.
With this generation, the consoles are getting too damn expensive. By the time you factor in accessories, you easily spend as much on them as PC's now. It's actually getting back to the point where if you already need a PC, it's just cheaper to spend extra to turn it into a gaming machine rather than gettin a work PC and a gaming rig.
Xbox 360 - was around $299
Extra controller - $50
Charging kit for a controller - $30
wireless adapter - $75
if you decide the 20gb drive is too small, you want the 120 - $200
memory card to serve as a backup to the hard drive - $50
headphones so you don't wake up the read of the house at night - $75
$779. And if you decided to upgrade the TV from the ol' CRT to a proper HDTV to look nice with the console, $1000 and up.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The big problem with consoles is portability.
You can't take them on the road without completely rebuilding one into a console laptop (which your average person can't do without completely fucking the board up). For me, a console is totally worthless since I spend most of my time out of the house. However, if you were to have some sort of console laptop, you'd still be stuck with the fact that you'd need multiple systems if you want to play all the games. The only way a system like this would be logistically feasible would be if Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo joined forces to put out one system that could do everything and that has 0 chance of ever happening.
The concept of a pc/console hybrid is nice sounding and all, but sometimes the chocolate needs to stay out of the peanut butter. A hobbled desktop wouldn't really be all that useful and wouldn't have the appeal that a cheap pc does. Likewise, a console with some desktop capabilities would be ripe for abuse unless user access was severely crippled, which defeats the point of doing this in the first place.
It's a neat thought, but the more likely scenario is that consoles continue to be the restricted home use enviroments that they are with the companies slowly adding more functionality that the user can't tamper with.
We don't like your kind in these parts.
(In strong Cornish accent)
I agree with everything except the part about merging into the PC. Instead it will merge into the Mac. The last successful OS launch for the PC was XP in 2001. Almost 8 years now of going nowhere.
The PC is optimized for one person to use at a distance of maybe 0.5 m. It sits on a desk. It is a lousy multi-player device.
The console is optimized for multiple people to use at a distance of 2 m. It sits in the living room. It is an excellent multi-player device, and, even if equipped with a keyboard and mouse, a highly inconvenient personal computer.
This is in addition to the cost reasons already cited.
I piss off bigots.
FPS (mouse+keyb is unbeatable) Prove for this is the fact that afaik there are no servers with mixed population for games like CoD 4, Sony told PC players would have a natural advantage. RTS (try play SC, Wc3 TFT or C&C with a joypad) Good luck playing a RTS with consoles. MORPG (updates, disk space, customization) Try to think to run WoW on a PS3 not having the chance to add any of the addons. Pathetic. If you say "but then we'll attach a keyb+mouse to PS3/Xbox360" then think that you'll need a desk to play on. And that probably you want to browse the net. Read ./ . Have a chat with gaim or on your preferred IRC channel. And maybe you're watching a movie on the other screen while you're waiting your guildies ready to raid/your teammates to come online to play some Team DM/CTF.
If you think that PC games is for niches, ask yourself how much $$ are making WoW, how many people plays at FPS and RTS...
Cheers,
The reason consoles and PC are separate is because every console uses the same hardware. You buy a PS3, and it will work in the same way as another PS3 (barring minor chip revisions, carefully checked to be backwards compatible). You can easily tailor your code to take advantage of the specific platform, introducing lots of little tricks to speed things up.
On a PC, however, you have to code for as many hardware devices as possible. Instead of optimising, you're generalising. For a PC to also act as a console, it would either:
a) Have to PERFECTLY emulate the hardware of the console, in real time
b) Contain the same hardware as the console.
c) code as generally as possible, in which case why the hell are you coding for a console anyway?
(a) is technically difficult without an order of magnitude or more processing power than the emulated console, and (b) is just as or more expensive as the console itself.
I still have my 386 Amstrad (shudder) "MegaPC" that had a Sega Megadrive that was on some kind of ISA card. You just toggled a panel on the front so that it covered the floppy and exposed the cartridge slot and it activated the Megadrive 'half' of the machine and the display switched over.
So nothing new here? Nah, it'd be good, but unlikely.
... It would have to be:
1) Small enough to sit on your TV tray/Coffee Table
2) Each unit must have the same hardware (within limits) and cannot be easilly upgradable without trashing the old unit
3) Have Mouse and Keyboard Support
4) Have a General Purpose Office software
5) Play Games
well, 4/5 itsn't bad for the Mac Mini
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
I canâ(TM)t see them combining. As someone has already said, the days of the PC as a gaming platform are numbered, itâ(TM)s only every really been suited to specific game genres anyway.
I think that one day soon, we may get a common console platform. Weâ(TM)ve already seen Sega drop hardware manufacturing in favour of just producing cross platform games. I honestly donâ(TM)t think it will be to long before another big player adopts this model and we are left with just one company producing mainstream console hardware.
Imagine it.. Every game could one day be using a failed 80â(TM)s light gun idea, whether itâ(TM)s needed or not! Scary thought!
consoles merging with pc? not in this life
I've been having the same idea since the days of the dreamcast. Knowing that a regular pc from today is more powerful than a console from 2 years ago, it just begs the question: Why not make some add on? call it a special optical drive - pci card - whatever with capabilities of enabling the soft for this other hw to run in a PC.
IMO, i think that would kill the system, just because of piracy (not just the games, but hardware too), and besides, some guy would certainly find a way to emulate the special hw or transfer some firmware (if it's some optical drive) or foul some security check or anything. Besides, since PCs are an open platform, it would be almost impossible to secure it via hardware check and there is almost no way to make games that are compatible with, if not all, at least the mayority of the wide array cf possible settings (just think how many processors can be plugged in your existing mobo) second, how will you make it secure? if game disks are in the very device to make copies?; and last, what will you use as a standard for processing power? should be the average-low system (to have a wide market, if not, you're fried) so, do you fancy games tailored for your regular celeron or low end dual core with integrated nvidia or ati graphics?
For all these and some more, a think a playstation-into-pc or whatever is a REALLY bad idea, BUT... what about dreamcast, saturn, ps2, etc.? ALMOST any pc today can make it with them. Why companies downt release some emulators? hw based or sw based its the same, if compatibility is good just tell me where to buy.
PS: My english sucks and im still sleepy so don't bother me with that
Amstad MegaPC and the Sega TeraDrive, both obviously failed.
Those machines were basically just a PC and a Megadrive (or Genesis as you USians knew them) in the same box. I seriously doubt you could get away with integrating a console into a PC as an expansion card because then you'd need to start testing games on umpteen different mobo combinations to be sure of compatibility, negating one of the major benefits of using a console in the first place.
Also, I don't see how it would stop MS or Sony loosing money on hardware at the start of a generation (I believe 360 hardware now turns a profit?). A company like Dell isn't going to shoulder a loss for Sony as they're not going to see any licensing revenue from games. Consumers would see an integrated box that is more expensive than two separate boxes and vote with their wallets.
Nick
Technology will always develop, consoles are merely a branch off of the PC to fill a hole that current PC technology could not. Consoles AND PCs will always exist, neither is going away. To put it frankly PCs can do so many things consoles can't but Consoles do games (and other stuff like DVDs etc) better than PCs but none of the other stuff they can do; they are specialists. Technology will always develop, right now there are a myriad of reason why some people use consoles over PCs but in time these weaknesses on the PC will be fixed. But consoles will evolve too do other things that future PCs will not. Other kinds of systems to do other things will also be developed. At the end of the day this is where I think its heading. PCs will always be the 'all rounder' doing 'good enough' in everything. Consoles will probably evolve into more of an all around entertainment center At least 3 other systems filling in other areas will develop. But these systems will not be independent of each other, each one will communicate to the others as one whole system. At the end of the day technology will reach the point where this is not only possible but logical and commercially viable. The people who are like 'PCs rock, consoles are lame' Are Wrong The people who are like 'Consoles rock, PCs are lame' Are Wrong The people who think either are going away. Are Wrong The people who think they will all just come together Are Wrong (at least until a very long time from now) The people that realize everything is here to stay and each forfills its own part in the industry Are Right. Comments/Flameing welcome
New graphics card - $299
New laser mouse - $50
Battery charger for the mouse - $30
More hard drive and RAM - $75
New CPU, if you decide yours is too slow - $200
Backup to the hard drive - $50
Headphones - $75
$779. And if you decided to upgrade your monitor from the ol' CRT to a big flatscreen or dual monitor setup, $900 and up.
Connecting a laptop to your TV? Cumbersome!
With a console, I need to plug one end of a cable into the multi-out port and the other end into my Vizio HDTV. With a PC, all I need to do is plug one end of a VGA+audio cable into the VGA and headphone jacks of the PC and the other end into the same TV. So what makes connecting your PC to your HDTV is no more cumbersome than connecting a console? Or are you assuming SDTV?
And where exactly would a person use a keyboard and mouse in their living room?
And where exactly would people use four keyboards and mice around one monitor? There are a lot of families that can afford one console and one HDTV, and one PC (with integrated graphics) and monitor for Firefox and OpenOffice.org, but not four PCs, four monitors, and four copies of each game.
As long as all the mainstream consoles right now are using PowerPC cores, they're about as close to PCs as goat cheese is to cows milk.
I'm all for PCs starting to use PowerPC though, if it means running console games on them. I doubt anyone would be too disappointed if they got a PC with a Cell or two in it.
If you have a machine solely for gaming, then it may as well be a machine thats guaranteed to play all games released for it,
So how does a new company without a prior published title for Windows release games for it? The market failure as of 1985 to the present is that virtually all machines designed solely for gaming happen to use cryptographic techniques to make sure that only established companies can publish games on the system.
Where you position the console is up to you, as is what type of games you play on it.
If a hobbyist can't break out gcc and make his own game for a console, is the latter really up to me?
a) Don't emulate at the hardware level...attack virtualization on the API level, as the WINE project has done. The roadmap is already there for this to happen, and if it is done right, then you can continue to update it moving forward.
b) Again, look as doing this as a virtualization, or if you have to emulate hardware, do it in a sandbox environment.
c) The point is to create a sandbox that is as close functionally to the console as can be reached. I'm sure if Nintendo or Sony were to vet the project to VMWare (or any of the other major players int he virtualization market) they would have a functional environment in which their games can be played on a PC. All they would need to do is sell the license and collect the royalty off of every game sold.
The only problem I can see to this is that as soon as the code gets into the wild, it will be reverse engineered and everyone will know what little "tricks" the console designers are using to optimize their performance on as little hardware as possible. Also, their games are more open to cracks and pirating (as well as cheating) since they are in contact with an open environment like a PC.
1500[credits]? I'll advise you to do some more research, as I've done recently for a potential new gaming PC. You can upgrade your entire system to a decent new rig for under 600[credits].
How many players can play at once on a 600[credit] system? Where I live, I can buy an LCD TV + Wii + three controllers for 1000[credits], compared to 2400[credits] for four gaming PCs.
Also, PC games are generally cheaper.
Not if you need four copies for four players, the way most major-label PC games are set up. I can buy a WiiWare game for about 10[credits], and I can play it with neighbors/cousins that I happen to be babysitting.
Except the draw of consoles is A) graphics on big-ass televisions
Every TV over $300 can take VGA or DVI video output from a PC.
and B) no hardware upgrade costs.
Not providing a version for older PCs is almost entirely the fault of publishers. If there are both PS2 and PS3 versions of a particular title, why can't there be XP and Vista[1] versions of a particular title? And why do things like World of Warcraft still run reasonably well on an older PC?
Why go back to PCs?
Because all the console makers appear to require a prior published title on another platform and use cryptographic methods to enforce this requirement. The only platforms that break this sort of chicken-and-egg for new developers are Windows and Mac OS X. Or just one word: mods.
[1] The Vista version might run on an upgraded XP box if it doesn't require DirectX 10. It's just easier for novice PC users to understand in terms of "requires a CPU and video card typical of a Vista-era PC" vs. "requires a CPU and video card typical of an XP-era PC".
Merge back? The Atari 2600 came out in 1977, 4 years before the first PC (If we define PC as 'IBM PC').
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
More importantly:
Same Hardware and Same O/S. I seriously doubt the Xbox division of Microsoft wants to deal with the situation where someone's Xbox-PC won't work because they got 3 zero-day drive-by worms from Internet Explorer and a virus from opening an infected word file someone sent them from work.
Consoles are nice because they just work all the time. PCs are nice (for gaming) because you can tinker with them to get best performance out of them. Those two values sets are mutually exclusive in the same machine.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
What we've seen will continue: consoles have begun to merge with HTPC's in their ability to play digital music, movies, photos, etc. They can't record/play tv shows, but can stream them over their internet connection via some tightly controlled channels (hulu, netflix, etc.). Since the console controls the TV, I think this trend will continue. HTPC/Apple TV's don't stand a chance. That said, there will always be a need for a standalone PC to do WORK on. You could use a spreadsheet in the living room, but you wouldn't WANT to (maybe with binoculars). PS - For all those arguing a price difference, I think it's almost 0. If you think ahead and buy a regular sized case, you can swap out the video card every 2-3 years and play the latest games on your PC. Averaging the high cost of consoles over their 6 year life, gives you a couple midrange video card upgrades.
I read that as "We don't like your kind in these pants."
Yeah, just starting to have my coffee.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Big screen TVs and surround sound. A large percentage of homes don't want their console in their PC. Their PC isn't in the room purpose built for entertainment. It isn't usually hooked up to large high definition displays. It doesn't usually have a big entertainment system drive the sound.
This person is a moron if they think "cost savings of hardware" has anything to do with the gaming market.
The true answer is, given enough time, neither will technically 'win' this battle.
Distributed (cloud) computing will be the death knell for all computers as we know them, be it console or desktop. Games will be something that reside and run on a server farm somewhere on the world wide grid, and the resultant information will be displayed on your 'terminal', be it a small monitor or a wall-sized display.
For the time being, both have their ups and downs. Consoles will have their ease of use and walled garden usability and PCs will have their infinite hardware iterations and limitless potential for modability.
PCs are PCs and consoles are consoles. If hybridization didn't succeed for the Odyssey^2, Commodore 64GS, Coleco ADAM, Atari XEGS, Amiga CDTV, CDi, Sega TeraDrive, Amstrad Mega PC, FM TOWNS Marty, and 3DO -- why would it succeed now?
I said "mouse and keyboard", not just a non-standard mouse designed to work for only a few games.
It's not that the mouse is designed to work with only a few games, it's that on a console, only a few games are designed to accept the mouse and keyboard, because they're NON-STANDARD peripherals. That's why computer games continue to provide access through the mouse and keyboard (where they are standard). When (if) consoles get to the point where they honestly try to go toe to toe with a PC and start including mouse & keyboard, then maybe we'll see regular support for mouse & keyboard in a console's games.
just develop for the PC .. no licensing fees
the very existence of consoles suggest that there is value in the platform. Otherwise, all games would be PC based and it wouldn't be very difficult to build an open console platform that is based on PC components.
You speak London? I speak London very best.
Uhhh in October I built a PC that can run GTA4 smoothly for about 550.00 USD. I could have easily brought the price down and still run the game "at acceptable rates". I dunno where you pulled that exorbant price figure from, but you can see the recommended system specs here - http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/10/gta-iv-pc-delay.html
You can meet or exceed those recommended specs for PC for the price of a PS3 + USB keyboard + USB mouse + buying the game again. Just check out some systems on an online PC store (tigerdirect is the only comparable option to newegg and zipzoomfly that ships outside the USA that I know of) or by building it yourself.
Is this guy really in charge of a PC Gaming organization?
"I mean, can't they create a stable enough environment to specify that if Dell's going to sell that notebook and say that it's PlayStation 4 [compatible] that it must have certain ingredients and it must meet certain criteria? Absolutely they could [do] that."
Does he really believe this? Each of the current generation consoles has extremely proprietary hardware implementations: the PS3's Cell, the Xbox 360's triple-core, the Wii's Gekko+ (it's still a PowerPC). Trying to jam this hardware into a desktop PC with the belief that it could ever be "stable" is a retarded idea.
And why would they even try? There's no benefit to console manufacturers - even with different hard drive capacities on different models (stupid), one of the biggest advantages of console game development over PC game development is the locked platform. It's not a moving target. There's no need to support graphics chipsets X Y and Z or system revisions 1 through 10,000 (given console firmware updates don't typically change much).
That Randy Stude thinks putting a modern console in a PC is feasible, and that he thinks the idea is preferable to a console manufacturer, shows that he knows absolutely nothing about game consoles. At all.
First post here, so I'm not really into this yet ... be kind ...
I could imagine that many minor game producers would welcome a Java standard for games. It would reduce the difficulty of entering a market by requiring support for fewer platforms.
EA wants 'open gaming platform': http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7052420.stm
"We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible,"
Can you honestly say that your 4 year old PC will play the latest game with all features enabled as the developer intended it at the native resolution of the display or will you have to turn some of the stuff down?
Well at least you can turn the detail down in better-engineered PC games. It's like getting PlayStation 2 and PLAYSTATION 3 versions of a game in the same retail box. Think about it: if you play the PS2 version of a game also available for PS3, is it not "as the developer intended it" to look on a PS2?
And there will still probably be new commercial games released for the PS2 when the PS5 and XBox 720 are new.
I'd like to see your source for this. If it's just conjecture, consider that Sony stopped pressing PS1 discs before the PS3 came out.
As stated many times before the main strong point of consoles (used to be at least) that they just worked. Buy game, put game in console, play game. No drivers, no wacky DRM raping your dataz and privacy
Instead, you have a different kind of wacky DRM trying to exclude games developed by a team of dedicated amateurs. Nintendo has stated on warioworld.com that won't consider granting your team a license even for WiiWare unless you have leased office space and ideally a prior published title on another platform (in practice, Windows or Mac OS X).
This is the first time, I think, that Slashdot has published an article written by someone who has both never used a PC and never used a console (opening coconuts with it doesn't count).
Edith Keeler Must Die
ok, I haven't read all the posts here, but I did read a lot of them and no one has seemed to catch onto what the core point of what Randy Stude (great name btw) said. Most replies are talking about current trends and current social norms. His point is that with a small change, these trends can change.
His point: with a small amount of additional hardware and maybe a "Sony PS4 card" installed any good PC can have console specs. What most posters then did is decide that PCs need to be upgraded to keep up with new games while consoles work for years.
Here's a few points:
1) Console hardware does not magically upgrade itself. Meaning: if you have console spec hardware when you buy your PC, in 4 years you STILL HAVE CONSOLE SPEC HARDWARE, wow what a concept. You would have the exact same ability to play games as those who are running it on a Console. So the PS4 chip just says, oh, this is a PS4 game put in the blueray, I'll treat it like one and BAM the PC is a console.
2) PCs need to be upgraded to run newer games because the games for PC are coded for PCs not for consoles. Ok, this is a difficult one, but stay with me. PC games keep having higher and higher Sys Reqs right? but Console games are stuck with a set of specs. The same specs as when the console was first built. The reason the games for PC need more power is because they are designed to use bleeding edge tech. if you have a PS4(tm) certified PC and you get a PS4 game.... It's designed for a PS4, not a PC so it works perfectly fine on the 4 year old PC. The advantage is that over 4-5 years (like we saw with the original Nentendo) game makers just get better at utilizing the console's abilities to make games with better graphics etc.
I'm sorry I'm a bit ruffled, but it seems like the discussion went completely away from what was stated.
If you could buy a PC that has a blueray drive that, when you press a button, opens (without you having to boot up your PC), and when you put in a PS3 game, it quick boots to the PS3 console how much more would you pay for that PC than a normal one? I'd throw in a couple 100. Because I KNOW that it will always be able to run ALL PS3 games.
... other than profit for the console makers. PCs, with good graphics adapters, were always been capable of doing the same things as the consoles of any given year.
I don't see wasting my money on a console when for $100 more I can get a PC that will do all the same things plus a LOT more!
In fact to read about it, you'd think the idea comes from a complete non-gamer, who knows very little about PC and Console gaming.
In order to make this happen, all the hardware would have to be included, and the cost just doesn't make sense. $199 for a standalone XBOX, or $169 for a module that fits in your PC? Is the LOSS of convenience of a standalone unit really worth sticking it in your PC?? And then being tied to your desk to play?
3DO already tried this in the 90's and it failed miserably.
From where I sit, PC games are on life support. Look at the Amazon top 25 sellers in video games...all console-related. Kids now spend most of their time on console games. Console sales are exploding. PC games have a long list of issues that consoles don't have: hardware compatibility, upgrades, windows version, inadequate hardware, viruses, 'installation' effort, corrupted install, etc. But...the biggest advantage of consoles now might be the user interface stuff. The wiimotes, numchucks, wireless controllers, zappers, guitars, drumsets, guns, etc. Sitting in front of a desktop screen clutching a mouse just doesn't do it for most games anymore. Yes, a lot of that stuff can be added to a PC but it's more difficult and expensive, not to mention creating potential compatibility issues with other non-game gear on the PC. Sure a PC brings huge storage and more powerful CPUs and GPUs to the table...but those don't seem to be resulting in games that offer enough fun to overcome all of the other limitations. PC games are not going away anytime soon but I expect that most of the development resources are going to consoles right now.
Friday, December 12, 2008 12:03 pm. It's about copy protection aka "DRM". The consoles progress, the PC recedes, because good copy-protection is impossible on the PC. Randy Stude is correct IF the PC gets really good copy-protection -- which I don't want; which nobody wants, except the manufacturers of games and other software.
4 computers, monitors, speaker sets, etc so you and 3 friends can play some multi-player whenever they randomly drop by: $4000
I could certainly imagine console makers doing as suggested, and sell the right to build an XBox on PS into a computer. But if it happens, I expect that it will be a small part of the market, not a "merger" of consoles and PCs.
The big selling point of consoles, is, after all, that they are cheap. My XBox 360 or PS3 already does nearly everything that I want to do with my entertainment center--streams video from my computer or from Netflix, stores or streams music, plays DVDs, plays games, does light-duty web browsing. Why should I pay extra for a PC? There are always going to be a few people who would like to be able to play keyboard/mouse-style games in their entertainment room rather than at their desk, but I doubt if they'll ever be a big market segment.
USB will support however many gaming devices I plug in. Got a hub? How about 16 simultaneous players? Now SOFTWARE on the other hand might be to blame
I have a PC, I have a 32" Vizio HDTV, and I have GCC. The only thing left before I go develop a 4-player HTPC game is a market. Do you think there's a sizable one?
but that's why we have emulators
If you own the Game Paks that you're emulating, you might as well use the original console. If not...
You console monkeys always bring this up, and it's just not true. You compare the most expensive video card currently on the market to the base model of a console that's been out for years and then use it as an example of PC gaming being more expensive.
YES. the most expensive card on the market costs some 800 bucks. But do you need that card to play all your games at max detail, max resolution (WAY above the lametastic 1080p that a console can do btw) and max framerates? Nope. You don't
I bought a nearly top of the line Nvidia 9800 GTX card a few months ago from newegg for 150 bucks shipped to my door. It plays every game I own at 1600x1200 with everything turned up all the way.
Video cards are the console gamers straw man and I wish you people would shut up about them.
A console gets installed like a DVD player. A laptop will "wander" around the house.
Then buy a slim desktop PC. HP makes the Pavilion Slimline, which isn't much bigger than an Xbox 360 Elite and isn't much more expensive either.
Consoles in the home predate PC's in the home. In fact the most popular single model of home computer ever, the Commodore 64 was originally designed to be a gaming console that was turned into a home computer later in it's development. The same happened to the Amiga, which also got turned back into a console late in it's life. Besides, a lot of people back in the 80's early 90's used their C64's and Amiga's solely for gaming essentially using them much the same as consoles are today. There's people who only knew enough C64 commands to type: load "*",8,0
The current generation of consoles are far far more capable than the previous ones you might be thinking of, got around to compiling vim 7.2 on my PS3 today, I had 7.1 installed. And yes, I'm responding via Linux on my PS3:
Ran firefox on my PS2 too, so that "I can do a lot more on my PC besides play games" argument doesn't work anymore.
You're ignoring my point. The PC is on a desk. The console is in the living room. They are different places set up in different ways. You cannot merge them.
I piss off bigots.
I think this might break the ease of use argument in favour of consoles.
In a way, they already have. I remember there was this push for media PCs a few years back. Now? why bother when you can buy a 360 or PS3 and use that as a media PC. Both can play DVDs (PS3 can also play blueray). Both already have all the connectors to interact with your entertainment system. Both have hard drives to store media on. Both can play most media. Both can connect with other computers on the network for even more media options. About the only thing missing is the fact that your currently stuck using the media players supported by the console makers (well maybe not on the PS3 if you switch it to running Linux).
What's probably more likely to happen is someone will come up with console emulators for current generation consoles that either doesn't require any special hardware, or only requires some commodity hardware that can be thrown on a pci-express card. Of course, this would just make the console game piracy scene much more noticeable since an emulator can just ignore the hardware DRM (instead of the current modding of consoles to get around it).
Oh? It's a dual boot thing, running Linux on your PS2/PS3 has little affect of "GameOS" functionality.
But if you mean Linux isn't easy to use, well it's not that hard, as long as you're willing to Google, read message boards and maybe buy a Linux for newbies type book. My first exposure to Linux was on the PS2, by the way. I'm a believer in "Linux for the masses, not just those who've taken programming classes."
You've got one of each in two separate places, because you've got enough money to pay for four different entertainment devices. That's nice for you, but it's not merger, it's sprawl. The goal of convergence is to try to get it all in one single box, and I still don't think that's going to happen.
I piss off bigots.
Lousy place for it if the goal is to have 8 or 10 people around all chugging brews and talking smack and giving each other the high five while they play Madden. What you've done is reduced the usability of your console.
I piss off bigots.
Seriously, someone should seriously reconsider having this guy in charge... His brightest hope for the future of PC gaming is "Don't worry! In the future game consoles will be integrated with PCs!" -- How about making real steps to make PC gaming better?
I'm not even a PC gamer... by a large margin, most of my gaming in on my 360 -- If it weren't for Half-life 2 and the likes of Portal and Left 4 Dead, I wouldn't game on my PC in any measurable amount. Its mostly a social thing -- the majority of my gamer friends are on their 360s on live... What PC gaming could use is a consistant "friends" experience more than anything else... Its not that I can't manage 12 different friends list for 12 different games, its that I don't want to... and I want to know when my Unreal Tournament buddies are online playing Left 4 Dead without them having to track down my info and tell me. Anything with an online component is about social features these days -- come up with a good, open system for this with support from the big PC publishers and that will be a big boone. Ignoring the touchy DRM issue, Steam's social features are close, they just need broader industry support, and to perhaps commit to a multi-company organizing body for the future, at least for the social aspects.
There's certainly a lot more this guy seems clueless about, but that ought to give him enough to chew on for awhile, instead of chasing the rainbow that is convergence... If anything, convergence in some form is likely, but its not going to favor the PC -- Instead, Consoles will take on basic PC tasks (Web, email, IM, media) in living rooms, bedrooms and dens, and PCs will largely be relegated to those that need more than those basic tasks, or one-per-household status.
Except emulators add functionality.
True.
I can play a 2 player snes game over the network to any friend I want in the world.
With how much lag? Is, say, Super Street Fighter II fun between a player in North America and a player in Japan?
Emulators allow one aging pc to play 100s of MAME, NES, SNES, GENS games.
But how do you dump your MAME PCBs, NES Game Paks, Super NES Game Paks, and Genesis cartridges into your PC so that you can use them with emulators? (Owning a lawfully made copy of a work is not a defense to downloading another copy from a ROM site. In US case law, for example, the key case is UMG Recordings v. MP3.com.)
I can't play my old zelda cartride because the internal battery died so you can't save a game, but I can play it on my computer. Thanks to emulators.
The Legend of Zelda with the built-in Virtual Console emulator is on Wii Shop Channel, and you don't need to dump your Game Pak.
Of course a PC could do what my Playstation does -- if there were DualShock controllers for the PC, and Tekken games. But there aren't. The fighting game is a whole genre that's completely absent from the PC platform.
Discrete graphics cards will be a niche market in a few years, left mainly to NVidia - notebooks are displacing all but the cheapest desktops and a tiny remnant of high end desktops. Graphics progress is slowing way down, which means integrated (CPU and system board) graphics is going to catch up (their longer design cycles won't matter as much) and suck away more of the dedicated card market. But PC users are still going to want great gaming.
Where's that take us? The "Power/Cooling Dock". Hot-dock your notebook to the PCD, and it gets more power AND more cooling capacity. 2x or 4x as many CPU cores and GPU cores power up, and maybe another bank of memory turns on. Your notebook computer becomes a game-playing monster. The docking station is wired to your large screen TV AND large screen desktop monitor, and of course your hard wired broadband connection.
OR
Microsoft comes out with their new closed *virtual* gaming environment - no hardware, or maybe just a little device that standardizes older PCs. They make their money licensing and selling games to run under that standard, and access to their carefully crafted on-line gaming network.
OR
Nintendo brings out their new console - it's a box that can run flash-memory games stand-alone - but it is easily set up to use any network attached PC as a "server" for hard drive and optical disc drive and keyboard and mouse. It's able to switch onto your desktop monitor or TV or even put itself in a window on your PC OS or vice versa. It's $100 cheaper than it's traditional console competitors, but has $100 more hardware dedicated to great graphics, AND they'll be making money on it by year 2.
console makers money off license fees from games, not the hardware.
I've been hearing this for years, but maybe one day when a fast home network is as standard as a TV in homes, a Nintendo or Sony branded drive bay insert sort of thing that works with the PC's optical drive and hard drive, and works fast enough to play games in the next room where the TV is. You know, that dream where everything comes together, DVR, music, digital distribution stored in one loction in the house.
Yet the game sold infinitely more copies on the console.
Ten year old games, what's the relevance?
I was saying that it is not so easy for somebody to do the install of Linux onto the PS3. I know a few people who ask somebody to come round to help them install software on their PC. Installing an OS would be very intimidating to a lot of people.
Not when my PC's in another room.
An extra PC (even including the Windows license) is no more expensive than an Xbox 360 Elite, and if you buy something like an HP Pavilion Slimline, it's no uglier either.
Then you've got the sound to worry about
PCs have an audio output. TVs have an audio input.
Plus gaming on a PC means if someone is using the computer for work, no-one can play any games.
How is a console any different? If I'm using Internet Channel on my Wii, my cousin can't play Brawl.
But that's just it. It *wont* do the same thing the consoles do. I play console games because I'm tired of monkeying with the PC. I use my PC for work, web, etc. I use my Xbox for games. Wanna play a game? Pop it in and play. No setup. No fuss. Just enjoy. There's also almost no possibility that the game will have difficulty with YOUR system. (The slight exceptions being poorly developed, quickly released games. This rarely happens with good titles, so it's really not a major consideration.)
And it'll be a good tilt more than $100 more to get a PC that'll do what an Xbox360 can do. To match the capabilities (graphically) of an Xbox360, right now, you'll need about a $600 machine (not including monitor, operating system). The xbox is $300.
I understand that that $600 machine can do more than play games, but for that extra flexibility, you'll also need to mess with it. Driver updates... windows updates... anti-virus... anti-spyware... blah blah blah. Oh, and don't forget the installs... How I loathe the installs...
I use Linux as my PC, so I avoid most of the cruft of computing, but Linux, sadly, just doesn't cut the mustard for gaming. Thus, I game with consoles.
FYI, Final Fantasy XI not only has mixed-population hardware on its servers (PS2, 360, PC), it also does not separate servers by region. And you can put a keyboard next to you on a couch. (mouse support is rather pointless in FFXI if you have a joypad)
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Ehhhehehehe... oops! Summary said "compatible"! When you are discussing PC gaming versus console gaming, one of the MAINFUCKINGPOINTS of consoles is that they are not merely "compatible" with a standard hardware spec. They are IDENTICAL in every component. There is no "console X compatible", just something that is console x or it isn't. Taking this away, introducing any relaxation in the specification of hardware, introduces all the fucked-up problems that PCs today face as a result of everyone having their own hardware from third-party vendors. I shudder to think of the day when I have to download hardware drivers for my console variant. Market implosion anyone?
My friends.
I assure you, that for this reason (i.e. homogenous, reliable, tested hardware) alone, and there may be others, consoles will remain proprietary black boxes and it's a very good thing. Now please stop the fever-induced hallucinations...