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)
...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"?
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?
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
True, you're not going to develop a 3d hardware accelerated game directly on the PS3 (for now). But you can do 2D games or make a prototype to show a publisher or SCEA.
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!
The big problem with consoles is portability.
What's more portable than a DS Lite? You can't stuff a PC in your pocket either, and netbooks can't keep up with PC game graphics unless the game is designed to run on desktop PCs made four years ago, like WoW or something.