How the PC Is Making Consoles Look Out of Date

An anonymous reader writes "What has been clear from this year's Game Developers Conference is that consoles are beginning to show their age. With nothing beyond a possible Nintendo update on the horizon, developers at this year's GDC have turned their eyes to the PC. The article includes three videos that give a fantastic insight into where PC graphics are headed, including a version of Epic's Unreal engine, Crytek's Cryengine 3, and DICE's Frostbite 2 engine. Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games."

Comments

Not only graphics

[devxo]

You also need a PC with keyboard and mouse for precise controls. That's something consoles don't offer. There is no way you can use console to shoot me as fast as I can shoot you with a mouse. As soon as I see you, you are dead.

Re:Not only graphics

[The MAZZTer]

Actually the Wiimote is pretty good for aiming, once you get used to it. Only flaw is turning is slow.

Re:Not only graphics

[somersault]

Doesn't matter, as long as your opponents have the same limitations. It's still frustrating at times, but it got me out of the PC upgrade cycle for a while, and it's been a good experience. Console graphics of this generation have definitely been approaching "good enough" in my book, and the next generation will definitely last a good while too. Even in PC gaming recently there haven't been many games pushing the latest hardware to the limits.

Re:Not only graphics

[Superken7]

I used to think that, too. I currently have a Wii and an Xbox and guess what: I find shooters to be more precise with the xbox controller. (the technique, of course, is totally different (less natural) but more precise in the end)

I would have never thought that I would find it to be that way. Its surprising and I still don't know why it is, but its true for me.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

That's when you hook up a keyboard and mouse to your xbox and make all Halo gamers go FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUU....

Re:Not only graphics

[Qlither]

Since when did speed become the only thing to affect the immersion of a game?

While there is more options for move/action placement on a keyboard. You can still make great FPS and some lighter on the slots RPG's on consoles. I find the argument of mouse/keyboard vs controller to pointless most of the time. In the end it all boils down to what works best for you. Crunch gear did a good piece on this a few years back now :

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/11/10/mouse-and-keyboard-vs-console-controller-lets-bury-the-hatchet/

The main benefit to console gaming is the greater chance of a working game out of the box, compared to the troubles of running games on pc.

Re:Not only graphics

[shadowfaxcrx]

That's a pretty hefty flaw when I'm behind you aiming a rifle at your head. . .

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Only flaw is turning is slow.

Uhh, that's the WHOLE problem with all console controls. With a keyboard/mouse setup, I can spin 180, while leaping through the air, target and kill someone all the way across a map almost effortlessly.

Re:Not only graphics

[rainmouse]

Even in PC gaming recently there haven't been many games pushing the latest hardware to the limits.

Thats usually because most PC games are being held back by developers pandering to console version limitations from the very start of the development cycle.

Re:Not only graphics

[nametaken]

History tells us that most people don't care, and happily forgo that in favor of simplicity, equal rigs and a lower cost. The advantage of superior controls on a PC is irrelevant to them.

Re:Not only graphics

[Decessus]

Except precise controls have never been something that most people who play video games cares about. It's really not that much of an advantage except in twitch games like multiplayer COD. You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect. They just need to be good enough.

The biggest perceived advantage that a console has over a PC is ease of use. There is no installation to worry about. You simply put the CD in the drive and play. You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games. I don't know if this last point is true or not, but that perception is pretty prevalent in my experience.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

The main benefit to console gaming is the greater chance of a working game out of the box, compared to the troubles of running games on pc.

The problem for consoles is that they've been whittling away at that benefit for a while, with the availability of patches and poor quality hardware (what was the failure rate for RROD 360s?) as they rush products to market. PCs aren't perfect, but in my recent experience so long as you don't go out of your way to tinker you shouldn't face any problems in normal operation. A reputation sticks around a long time though.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

So the aimbot like aiming that most console games appear to have perminitly enabled has nothing to do with it then?

Re:Not only graphics

[causality]

I used to think that, too. I currently have a Wii and an Xbox and guess what: I find shooters to be more precise with the xbox controller. (the technique, of course, is totally different (less natural) but more precise in the end)

I would have never thought that I would find it to be that way. Its surprising and I still don't know why it is, but its true for me.

It's possible that I have a bias here because most gaming I do is on a PC. I am therefore open to suggestions that I may not perceive it that way if I had equal experience with each kind of input device. Having said that, at least in my personal experience I know no better controller for something like a 1st-person shooter than a keyboard and mouse. It seems like with an Xbox-style controller I can be either fast or precise depending on the sensitivity setting, but it is quite difficult to achieve both. It often ends up being a balance or a trade-off.

With a mouse I can be slow and precise or I can be fast and precise. It is far easier, for me, to suddenly turn around and get a fast yet accurate headshot against an enemy alien (or whatever) with a mouse. With an Xbox-style controller I often barely miss the headshot and end up getting myself killed or having a big struggle that could have been a fast encounter.

I think it's partly because the mouse can cover more ground more swiftly. I can flick it across the mousepad in a fraction of a second. I can also suddenly stop its movement and the cursor instantly stops with it. Also, a mouse cursor usually has an acceleration setting that makes the sensitivity setting less important. With an Xbox-style controller it seems more important during gameplay to maintain a positional advantage, i.e. to get the drop on an enemy. With a mouse and keyboard I feel more like my reflexes and ability to pay attention are the primary limitations.

The comparison you raise is interesting to me. I have hardly ever used a Wii and even then I have never tried playing a 1st-person shooter. I think for a shooter the Wii controller may be hamstrung because the one-handed controller is trying to provide the functionality for which a PC would use two hands, one on a mouse and the other on a keyboard. For that reason I can see why you would say the Xbox controller is better albeit less natural.

Re:Not only graphics

[tuffy]

Precise controls at first-person shooters and strategy games, at least. Keyboard and mouse are completely inadequate for other genres such as racing (where a wheel would be best), platforming (analog stick), golf (motion control), fighting (multi-button arcade stick) and so on.

They're certainly not a solution for everything.

Re:Not only graphics

[Symbha]

I gotta say, you really seemed to have missed the point.

I would much prefer to sit on the couch, and play a shooter on the 60" against other people sitting on their couches, with the exact same hardware that I have. Even if it means I can't aim quite as good as I could with the keyboard and mouse. But not if the games on my pc look so much better.

Re:Not only graphics

[mldi]

I tend to tense up my hands when playing intense video games (like a fast-action highly competitive FPS). This inevitably leads to repetitive motion injuries for me. I've tried to train myself to relax more, but I just can't make it happen with a mouse.

That isn't the only reason I prefer consoles, but it's a contributing factor. Of course, there are exceptions (Super Meat Boy on consoles KILLS my hands).

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine line there... your experience is quite the opposite of most competitive gamers.

Try controlling a game like Starcraft II with a console remote. It's practically impossible (see starcraft for N64) without throwing the controller out the window.

True for you, true for many console gamers in general... not true for the VAST majority of proficient mouse users.

I would put money up against anyone who told me they could outplay me in any FPS or RTS game using a console remote. I'd laugh my way to the bank.

Mice rule all other input devices (trackballs, I've heard, can be just as good).

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games.

Given a lot of current PC games come out as console ports, the "upgrade to play" has not been true I feel for near on 2 years.

Re:Not only graphics

[VGPowerlord]

I think for a shooter the Wii controller may be hamstrung because the one-handed controller is trying to provide the functionality for which a PC would use two hands, one on a mouse and the other on a keyboard. For that reason I can see why you would say the Xbox controller is better albeit less natural.

No, the problem with the Wiimote is that either the turn function has to be on the control stick, or on the pointer. If on the control stick, you're back to control stick limits for turn speed. If it's on the pointer, you're limited because it won't turn at all if the pointer goes off the screen. Either way, you lose the mouse's quick-turn advantage.

Re:Not only graphics

[The Grim Reefer2]

The main benefit to console gaming is the greater chance of a working game out of the box, compared to the troubles of running games on pc.

I don't remember the last time I had major issues with a PC game. Mass Effect didn't like my Phenom processor, but it took all of five minutes to find a patch and get it working. Prior to that I honestly can't remember anything going wrong unless I go back to Windows 95 or getting 3D drivers in Linux. I'm sure there were issues with games w/ 2K, but they must have been trivial enough that I don't recall.

In all honesty, I'd rather deal with driver issues and patches than when sequels to good PC games get overly simplified so that it can be played on a console (Deus Ex 2). Not that I have much time for games these days anyhow.

Re:Not only graphics

[bondsbw]

Which is precisely why the premise of this story is wrong. And if I developed games, why would I target the PC market with one really cool game that can only run if buyers spend $1000 to upgrade last year's octo-core 5.8 GHz 16 GB computer to this year's 32-core, 7.3 GHz 128 GB computer? I can make a butt ton of cash by targeting all consoles and PCs with a game that has the same gameplay but doesn't use the latest ray tracing graphics engine.

And does anyone really believe that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are thinking, "This is it... we have the best thing that could ever be"? All of them have plans for future hardware, whether they've announced them or not.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

With a keyboard/mouse setup, I can spin 180, while leaping through the air, target and kill someone all the way across a map almost effortlessly.

Honestly, that's one of the reasons I dislike modern FPS. Players tend to be hopping, somersaulting, whirling dervishes that have nothing in common with any sort of real human behavior on the battlefield.

A jump should take you no more than a foot in the air while carrying combat gear, and COMPLETELY ruin your accuracy during and for a bit afterward. If you're going to make your soldiers behave like low-g ballerinas, at least recognize that your game is silly, like Quake Arena.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

When the developers for that horrible game Shadowrun linked the two sides (PC and console) in online matches they actually found console gamers had much higher accuracies than those on the PC.

Re:Not only graphics

[chammy]

That could be because of the heavy autoaim you get in any game that has a regular controller. With most of the Wii shooters I've played there isn't much in the way of autoaim. At least not as much as something like Halo or COD.

Re:Not only graphics

[chammy]

I'd rather sit in my comfy computer chair, chat with friends on Teamspeak as well as in-game chat, and alt tab out of the game to browse the web inbetween rounds. It's not so much the graphics, its the convenience of being able to do more than just sit there and play games.

Re:Not only graphics

[Chris Burke]

Uhh, that's the WHOLE problem with all console controls.

No, the WHOLE problem with all console controls is that turning is slow, and more importantly AIMING is slow. You can't even aim at things that are in front of you quickly with a gamepad.

The Wii fixes one of those problems, and is vastly superior in every way for FPS shooting over gamepads. I simply can't play FPS games on consoles with gamepads anymore.

Of course PC controls are still better than the Wii. It's in the middle ground.

Re:Not only graphics

[VGPowerlord]

There is no installation to worry about. You simply put the CD in the drive and play.

Should I assume you don't have a PS3 or Xbox 360?

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

"what do you mean you are using a touch pad to play this game?"
"I dont like the mouse"
"no wonder you are dieing all the time"

I didnt *know* you could play a FPS with a touch pad.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how it used to be, and why console games used all kinds of tricks to pack as much content into the disc as possible simply because they couldn't add anything or change the game once it was pressed.

Nowadays, console games are moving towards how Steam is for the computer ( mostly ). You insert the disc, it does its copy to drive routine, downloads updates and runs the game.

I do agree that the consoles offer a Just Works experience ( until they go belly up ). On the other hand, they do this by heavily controlling what the user can actually do with the machine. At the end of the day, it plays games, does Netflix, and lets you communicate with people, which pretty much is all it can do. The user doesn't really have to worry about their kids illegally downloading a game or music on the console, the console getting viruses and starting to "run really slow."

A computer is a mysterious thing that is complicated and gets viruses all the time or is too hard to understand ( "I GUESS YOU COULD SAY I'M JUST COMPUTER ILLITERATE EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T FUNNY THE FIRST TEN YEARS I SAID THIS" ), and doesn't always Just Work. It could involve having to put discs that came with it in before you can even use it, or needing to either get your computer-smart friend to look at it for ten minutes or paying one of those helper people at stores 100 bucks to scrape all the free screensavers, cursors, toolbars, and anti-virus programs off for you.

Re:Not only graphics

[jedidiah]

...actually there are some Starcraft-esque games for the Wii.

They aren't particularly problematic. Although I hate to think what they would be like with a "conventional" game controller.

The wiimote makes a very respectable mouse.

Re:Not only graphics

[johanatan]

I turn sensitivity all the way up on XBOX. To move quickly, just give a swift but forceful burst and then scale it back to near-origin for the final adjustments. I agree though, it would be nicer still if games would implement momentum scrolling (essentially allowing for quicker bursts and fewer final adjustments [which would perhaps require a lower sensitivity setting than players are accustomed to]).

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in PC gaming recently there haven't been many games pushing the latest hardware to the limits.

Thats usually because most PC games are being held back by developers pandering to console version limitations from the very start of the development cycle.

I think it is more likely that developers are glad that consoles keep the cost of development down. You say "pandering", but really the cost of making games to the level of graphics we expect is already ridiculous. Do you think developers are really that keen for that near constant escalation? It's likely that not even the customers are that keen for it, which is probably one of the reasons we buy consoles in the first place.

Re:Not only graphics

[by (1706743)]

Since when did speed become the only thing to affect the immersion of a game?

Seriously -- I find acid much more effective.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a different type of FPS. Some like it realistic, some like Quake.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

That might apply to something like a "war" simulation FPS where everyone plays as a generic soldier with generic training. In a FPS where each player controls a unique, highly trained combatant, not at all. None of what you speak of is at all impossible for a real human in peak physical fitness and training to perform, not to mention the non-human and superhuman.

For example, I could easily believe that any of these guys could pull off such actions.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, I KNEW how this entire discussion was going to go.
Why did I start reading this crap?

Re:Not only graphics

[Mekabyte]

Games like the upcoming Conduit 2 get around the off-screen problem by using the Wii Motion Plus gyroscope for directional input when pointer information is missing. They also have a button mapped to 180 degree turn.

Re:Not only graphics

[nullifi]

I knew a guy that used a Logitech Trackman FX for FPS'. He was not very good. Granted, precision was ok, he could make fine tuned movements and with anything in front of him he could easily and quickly put the cursor on it. Turning was very limited since he had to move slowly to keep control, or flick the ball and have a hard time timing where it would stop when he stopped the ball.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

if aiming is done with the pointer but turning with the stick then you can balance the precision with the speed (as causality was saying), although certainly not better than with a mouse

Re:Not only graphics

[MistrBlank]

Not every game is a simple first person shooter. I like my games to, you know, be fun. Good luck with that as games move back to actually being fun for casual players.

I just started playing Borderlands and a friend was pissed at me for doing as well as he was with my 360 controller while he was on keyboard and mouse. As you get used to the control scheme you can raise the sensitivity and get generally the same response you would from a mouse.

I'm honestly tired of every console fanboy bringing this up everytime the debate swings by. In recent years I've played Mirrors Edge, Left 4 Dead 1 & 2, Fallout 3, Dead Rising 2, BF: Bad Company 2 and recently Borderlands all on my PC. The best thing the PC had on any of them was smoother graphics (because my system is only a year and a half old hardware) and the ability to mod a handful of them outside of DLC purchases. What I gave up was the ability to pop the disk in and just play, invariably there's always a war over settings tweaking that I go through between games and system settings to get the right amount of frames per second, ultimately though I end up with a game that looks better than the console version. In all cases I can play from my couch thanks to the 360 controller and HDMI connectivity it all plugs in the same.

Re:Not only graphics

[MistrBlank]

If you're behind me, there's typically no indication for me to know that anyway if you get the headshot, so it's irrelevant. If you're not getting the headshot, I will turn around and be able to deal (in most cases better with dual stick control to round out my movements and react).

I could also argue that Left 4 Dead fixed this issue with a button dedicated to 180degree instant turning.

 

Re:Not only graphics

[bberens]

I've always been of the opinion that it doesn't matter much, PC or Console for FPS type games. If everyone is playing from the same (or similar) input devices, then everyone is on equal footing. There is no "mouse point and click" on the console, so if PC provides more accurate input, so what? That doesn't mean that the console requires more or less skill than the PC version of a game, it just means that the two different versions are slightly different in that regard. The last time I was really into a FPS was when Counter Strike was still fairly new on XBox. I had some friends who were big PC players and they would always tout that if we could play against each other (them on PC, me on XBOX) then they'd roast me. That's probably true, but if we were both on XBOXes I probably would have roasted them. It didn't make much difference to me one way or the other.

Re:Not only graphics

[Chas]

Why do companies spec games against top-shelf systems?

Because development doesn't happen overnight. It can take anywhere between 12 and 36 months to bring a title to market.

In that time, what USED to be a top-shelf $2000+ system is now mainstream for performance on the market and can be gotten for less than half that.

Plus, if the player is willing to crank down the settings a little, the game will STILL be playable (if not screamingly fast and/or stunningly beautiful) on a $500 special.

Re:Not only graphics

[MistrBlank]

That is an option on those consoles, not a requirement and not in the same way that a PC handles it.

Re:Not only graphics

[ifrag]

You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games.

Unless you intentionally buy the BARE MINIMUM components on an upgrade then the PC is going to be good for years likely. So yes, if you go into a PC upgrade with extreme penny pinching then maybe you'll need another upgrade soon. No serious gamer with some discretionary income should be doing that, as that will waste far more money in the long term. Spend on the video card and the box will perform well throughout a typical consoles lifetime (this generation is odd as seen in TFA).

Re:Not only graphics

[MistrBlank]

You missed the point AGAIN.

His argument is about level playing field, nothing to do with options.

Re:Not only graphics

[IrquiM]

My PS3 works with a keyboard and a mouse? But I don't play FPS anyway so /care

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason that there aren't any consoles (that I'm aware of) that allow cross-platform multiplayer with computers. Even the best console gamers get outright slaughtered when challenged by PC gamers. There have even been studies that show that compared the reaction times of gamers on PC vs console; even in tightly controlled studies, console gamers don't stand a chance.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Some like it realistic, some like Quake.

Haha! A first person shooter - realistic? OK, how about no "health" indicator and no finding health packets along the road? How about, "you get hit, you are done."? How about no "respawn"? How about not being able to carry a massive number of weapons you can cycle through and "equip" out of your non-existent armory? How about sane limits to how much ammo you can carry? What about "cheat" modes that all these games have?

I don't think anyone likes it realistic. If someone made a realistic shooter nobody would buy it.

Re:Not only graphics

[badboy_tw2002]

Buy A PC: Access your games and sex life from one convenient location!

Re:Not only graphics

[toriver]

... and after spending all that on hardware they just download your game off a torrent anyway.

This is why the world's most popular PC games - World of Warcraft and Farmville - run fine on low-end machines that people actually have while Crytek et al mope about because of low sales of their "you need to be this rich to run our game" high-requirement, high-cost output.

Re:Not only graphics

[Blakey Rat]

Only if you play a super-limited set of games. (Pretty much just FPS and RTS games.) For almost every other genre, I far prefer a controller to a keyboard/mouse.

There are other genres, you know.

Re:Not only graphics

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Some of us play games where the objective isn't to explode torsos with rockets.

The PC sucks as a gaming platform. Driver issues, system breaking DRM, online issues, crashes...

Consoles have DRM, but it's a walking DRM box, if I keep all my DRM in one place, I don't have to worry about it breaking my shit.

Re:Not only graphics

[dc29A]

I had a PS3, tried the whole "ditch PC gaming for consoles" trend. Didn't work for me for many reasons:
- Don't like console controller. I could never get used to it.
- No complex strategy games like Civilization, no good RTS games, very few decent RPG games.
- No good MMOs.

So I got a new SB 2500K rig, never been happier. Steam/Impulse are fantastic, and new PC hardware is not expensive at all (unless you want to go into multi screen / Extreme CPU setups). For the common layman like me, a midrange quad core with a midrange video card is all I need.

Re:Not only graphics

[toriver]

Ask your average PC owner what level of PixelShader their graphics card supports. Or what half the other terms on the "system requirements" list even means. Or why they should need to know.

Meanwhile they can go into a store, get a game box that says "Playstation 3" on it and know it will work immediately on their PS3 console.

Not that I have much time for games these days anyhow.

In which case you should welcome "simplified" games on a console, no?

Re:Not only graphics

[mlts]

Don't forget that the advantage that consoles used to have (game done perfectly the first time because there would be no way to patch) has far since been lost.

Consoles also have fallen to the "it builds, ship it" mentality that has nailed almost all of the software industry except Blizzard [1]. Because it is easy to update code on modern consoles, QA has dropped from making the game as perfect as possible for the 1.0 drop, to even worse than PC games. At least PC games have some QA done on various hardware; since consoles use the same hardware, even this is likely skimped on.

These days, consoles provide two advantages over PCs: One is that the game *should* work. The other advantage has nothing to do with the user -- console games have a far lower piracy rate. This sole reason is why the big names are falling head over heels for consoles.

[1]: And people wonder why WoW is doing so well... perhaps if MMO designers actually released a finished product on opening day, they might have something that may keep interest more than the initial first week or two.

Re:Not only graphics

[jgagnon]

Let them carry all the ammo and weapons that they want... just make them explode like they should when they get hit by someone else. :p

Oh... and make them move slower, jump shorter distances, etc.

Re:Not only graphics

[Kisai]

I've played ME/ME2 on both the PC and the Xbox and I can tell you that the PC was easier. Mainly the sniper rifle in ME was a pain to aim on the Xbox version, in ME2 it wasn't so much of a problem. (I played ME on the PC the first time as a character that couldn't use it. But the same character type on ME2 on both versions.)

However the aiming precision in other games is equally as bad (eg GTA IV), if not tedious (Final Fantasy XIV) to use a controller with, regardless of it being on a console or PC (I use a wired Xbox 360 controller on both the xbox 360 and the PC when the option exists if the keyboard/mouse is too much of a pain.)

I think what is generally missing from the "Keyboard and Mouse" in console games is the lack of being able to use two hands independently. The Wii's controllers and even the Kinect force you to use one hand for doing everything, and the optional second hand is given a highly inflexible input.

Consider for a moment if the Wiimotes were wireless pairs/triplets instead of cabled together. One hand controls aiming, while the second hand should also have a 3-way accelerometer to tell which direction you want to move, or pivot/strafe. But it should also have buttons.

  So FPS game might simply have two "nunchuck" types with two buttons on each (left having physical movement, and turning/tilting/rotating the controller controlling the camera plus weapon/power cycle up/down, while the right nunchuck would actually aim the weapon (holding both nunchucks together would make the game react like if you were holding a single weapon with two hands), firing/reload.) To play other games, you'd then attach the button pad to the left/right part of the controller and you get the additional 6-8 buttons like on xbox/snes pad. Combine all three to have all the buttons. The only reason I see for this design not to happen is the weight/batteries would be a pain. A work-around for that would be to run the power packs of the three components in parallel when hooked together, so they run down equally. Thus charging them could be done the same way.

Re:Not only graphics

[Superken7]

Thats exactly why there are no good RTS for the console :) The closest I have seen on console are voice commands and its not even close to how fast one can control RTS games with a keyboard.

There are, however, even PRO players that play console FPS games. (NGL)

Re:Not only graphics

[causality]

the causality is you're an idiot.

cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

I see you haven't forgotten the time I humiliated you by demonstrating your cowardice and hypocrisy.

Excellent. It is good to know I had such an impact on you. Or your programmer, whichever may be the case.

Re:Not only graphics

[ArundelCastle]

As soon as I see you, you are dead.

But with a wave of my arm, I can smite you, and even make the little head squishing noise.

Re:Not only graphics

[francium goes boom]

You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games. I don't know if this last point is true or not, but that perception is pretty prevalent in my experience.

This statement is just down right false. My last computer I build myself 3 years ago and spent just a little over $500 on and was able to play any game, except for crysis, at Medium to Medium high settings. At the time a PS3 cost either $400 or $500. Since then I have just made on upgrade to my GPU, which was unnecessary but I got a small bonus and wanted to splurge. Even now, my q6600, 8800GT, and 4gb RAM would be more than enough to play any current game at reasonable quality and resolutions.

There are a few extra costs with a PC, like the OS, but the cost difference is not as large and upgrades are not as expensive as they use to be. The best arguement I can come up with in the Console vs PC war is that the console is much more of a social gaming experience than the PC is.

Re:Not only graphics

[IshmaelDS]

the original Rainbow Six was very much like that. :P Though I agree most are not.

Re:Not only graphics

[SScorpio]

Did you play Shadowrun on the PC? The console version had aim assist like all FPS games on consoles. The PC version had floaty unresponsive mouse movement that was put in place the name of leveling the playing field.

Re:Not only graphics

[dave562]

You forgot the key aspect of the PC. The aimbot and the wallhack. I don't care how fast your mouse skills are, the cheaters will beat you 80% of the time. That's why I only play FPS on the console now. Sure, the interface might not be as good, but at least everyone is playing on an even playing field.

Re:Not only graphics

[DragonTHC]

aim assist. It's the only way your pseudo-precision is possible. All the console shooters have it.

In fact, if you were to pit these players vs each other on their chosen platform, you'd see the results.

WINSLOWLEE420, VATOS PL, G A K E I R, BESTBUDZ99

vs.

FILTHY MOGA, RAFSHI, DER_MATI, CTAPUKAH

Throwdown! PC vs 360. who will win? obvious.

Re:Not only graphics

[Shikaku]

So, Valve is going to file for bankruptcy soon right? All their games are being pirated and Steam was a total bust.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/14/steam-controls-up-to-70-of-the-pc-download-market-and-is-tremendously-profitable/

Any day now...

Re:Not only graphics

[UnknownSoldier]

> aha! A first person shooter - realistic? OK, how about no "health" indicator and no finding health packets along the road? How about, "you get hit, you are done."? How about no "respawn"? How about not being able to carry a massive number of weapons you can cycle through and "equip" out of your non-existent armory? How about sane limits to how much ammo you can carry? What about "cheat" modes that all these games have?

Go play "Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising" on hard-core.

Realism != FUN.

Simulation _may_ be fun, but generally, it isn't in video games.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Most FPS games on the WII use the nunchuck as movement while the main controlis is apointing device for aiming/turning. Its actualy fairly interesting to use in this mannor but ive only ever played metroid with it in this mannor so i duno how it would work in other faster pace FPS games.

Re:Not only graphics

[UnknownSoldier]

> I just started playing Borderlands and a friend was pissed at me for doing as well as he was with my 360 controller while he was on keyboard and mouse.

Sounds like a pretty shallow friend -- instead of being happy at your success, he is jealous ?!?!

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games. I don't know if this last point is true or not, but that perception is pretty prevalent in my experience.

That is because the price of a console is subsidized. MS, Sony & Nintendo all sell the hardware at a loss because they get a percentage of every game sold.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6128295.html

Thats also why the more complex the console games, the shorter the view/render distance gets. And thats why you get more and more pre-rendered scenes these days.

Compare the CryEngine3 on a console to CryEngine2 on a PC. They cut corners so it would work on a console. Trees in the distance, shadows updated less frequently and area effects from explosions are all worse now. Even the cloud & water looks less realistic now.

Re:Not only graphics

[VGPowerlord]

[1]: And people wonder why WoW is doing so well... perhaps if MMO designers actually released a finished product on opening day, they might have something that may keep interest more than the initial first week or two.

You didn't play WoW on opening day, did you? Completely unplayable.

WoW's servers couldn't handle the number of players that WoW attracted. It was common for some servers to go down for days at a time (and you'd get a credit on your account if you had characters on one of those servers).

Database servers were shared between realms, and lag between the game and DB servers would cause the game to pretend you were standing still while your client showed you moving around. This was referred to as Loot Lag, and it happened a LOT.

Sure, WoW is great now, but it had the same exact problems when it launched that you're griping that new MMOs have. In fact, Blizzard didn't even fix the bugs found in the last round of closed and open betas before the game launched because they didn't want to push back the release date.

Re:Not only graphics

[hairyfeet]

Greater chance of working out of the box, what kind of shitty Dell you playing on? I can actually remember the last game that didn't work for me, Vampire:Bloodlines, and that was because the company went its up right on release. Thankfully the community were able to patch it a couple of months later and all was good. Would that have happened on a console? Not a chance, because you'd have had to get around the DRM which means only mod chipped consoles could have been patched, so it wouldn't have been worth the effort.

But really if you just stay away from the bleeding edge (beta drivers are NEVER a good idea) you'll find that most games are "insert disc>>clicky clicky next next next>>>play game" and that's it. Hell you can even set the game explorer in Windows 7 to automatically look for patches and give you the heads up, or use Steam and have all that automated. And it isn't like consoles are any better about it since getting a net connection. Just look at how many games need patching right from the start?

Now if you want to argue how some prefer the controls of the console, or their widescreen over the monitor (although to be fair more of the PCs I'm building are already set up to plug into their widescreens, which come with HDMI and VGA) but saying PCs aren't stable game machines is frankly BS. The stability problem died with Win9x and frankly I can't remember the last time I saw a BSOD. How many X360s got RROD, or PS3 the YROD? Quite a few from what I understand.

Re:Not only graphics

[goose-incarnated]

Ask your average PC owner what level of PixelShader their graphics card supports. Or what half the other terms on the "system requirements" list even means. Or why they should need to know.

Meanwhile they can go into a store, get a game box that says "Playstation 3" on it and know it will work immediately on their PS3 console.

Yeah, right. I go into a store, get a game box that says "PC game", and it works out the box, too, you know. I purchased >20 games in the last three years and every single one worked out the box. I don't know what graphics card I've got, or what processor, etc ... The machine was fairly top-end three years ago, but games I buy *today* work very well, including games like Starcraft2.

That argument *used* to be true, but now it isn't when even bottom end hardware can handle most games.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

FPS games on the Wii use a two handed controller - typically the old Gamecube controller or the Classic. They can use the Wii-mote as well, but they use it with the 'nunchuck' accessory - basically a control stick for the left hand, connected to the remote via a cable. The nunchuck controls positioning, as on the keyboard, and the remote controls view direction, as the mouse. The edges of the screen shift the viewport when you aim into them, with the speed of the movement depending on how far away from the centre you're aiming. In theory you can pull the remote off the screen for sharper movements, but at that point it's depending on the accelerometers and things start getting less precise.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

ME and ME2 aiming was awful on the PC until you edited the INI and turned off mouse damping & smoothing. You probably just got used to the feel :P.

Re:Not only graphics

[chammy]

His argument is about level playing field, nothing to do with options.

Patently false. There are plenty of hackers messing around on the PSN right now. At least on the PC we get real anti-cheat protection like VAC.

Re:Not only graphics

[RockoTDF]

So was the original Ghost Recon. Man, I miss that.

Re:Not only graphics

[Smauler]

Except precise controls have never been something that most people who play video games cares about. It's really not that much of an advantage except in twitch games like multiplayer COD. You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect. They just need to be good enough.

A little while back, Football Manager 2011 topped the games charts in the UK as a PC only release. This was in a week in which a couple of the biggest selling franchises released multi-platform titles. You don't need pin point precision to run it, but I can't imagine how annoying it would be without a mouse. Also, FM11 would be crap running without large databases, which current consoles can't provide.

I annoys me that 99% of the posts so far are about control methods. That's not what this article is about, there's plenty of other topics to flame therein (mouse does win in just about all circumstances, imo). This article is about how far behind current PC hardware current console hardware is, and how that is actually beginning to noticeably affect current game engine design.

The biggest perceived advantage that a console has over a PC is ease of use. There is no installation to worry about. You simply put the CD in the drive and play. You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games. I don't know if this last point is true or not, but that perception is pretty prevalent in my experience.

I admittedly did upgrade my graphics card on my PC recently, to a gtx460. It cost about a third of what my ps3 cost when I bought it. The rest of my PC I _already have_, and would already have even if I didn't use it for gaming at all. Most people's poor results gaming on PCs are due to buying overpriced general use systems not intended for gaming at all. Nearly all of the time, gaming is throttled by the graphics card. Nearly all of the time, mass produced PC systems skimp on the graphics card because they are expensive.

Another problem comparing PCs with consoles is the resolution. I play games at 1920*1200 on my PC. That's well over double the pixel count of 1280*720, which only _some_ console games manage. Admittedly some console games will run at 1920*1080, but they are very few and far between. If you want to compare graphics, you've got to set up like for like comparisons.

Re:Not only graphics

[myrdos2]

For me it's never been about pushing graphics to the limit, it's about the input. Playing an FPS with a mouse and keyboard is just vastly superior to doing the same with thumb-controlled joysticks.

On the other hand, if you put a mouse and keyboard on a console, you have something that looks an awful lot like a PC with limited software compatibility.

Re:Not only graphics

[The Grim Reefer2]

Hell, I couldn't tell what level the PixelShader is on my VGA card right now either. But in the last 8 or so years every game I've purchased worked right out of the box with the exception of the Mass Effect patch I mentioned.

Frankly that's a small price to pay IMO. And no, I really don't like the simplified console versions of games. If I'm actually going to take the time to play a game, then I prefer it be worth my time.

Re:Not only graphics

[Wagoo]

I've always wondered if a little trackball on a joypad instead of one of the analogue sticks would fix FPS on consoles, since all the games seem unwilling to support keyboard/mouse controls.. which is irritating as consoles have USB ports anyway these days.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Provided, ofcourse, that you play FPS games at all. Otherwise kbd/mouse is often irrelevant.

Re:Not only graphics

[Sigma 7]

You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect.

Platformers such as I Wanna be the Guy need pixel-perfect precision. Some more difficult platformers not only require more precision, but also require you to figure out what you need to do to survive while surviving elements of luck, in addition to throwing you back to stage 1 if you run out of lives (i.e. most 8-bit platformers). This will benefit from an analog controller, but only in some instances (it may be better just adding a "slow" button).

Transition to the 3D era didn't change it much. While SM64 may have plausable deniability (e.g. the camera may be one of Bowser's minions), you still need to walk in a straight line that might not be aligned with an X/Y Axis, or the camera may spin while you're doing that line. In this case, you want a mouse, and a guarantee that there isn't going to be a camera screw.

Re:Not only graphics

[CronoCloud]

Sounds like SOCOM to me. It has a health indicator...but no medkits. You're limited in ammo and weapons. (you get one rifle one pistol and a few grenades) You can't bunny hop, rocket jump or do any of that crazy shit PC FPS players expect in their games. You move slow, you turn slow. In later games, the more you carry (say accessories for your rifle) the slower you get.

Re:Not only graphics

[Seumas]

That point is irrelevant, since console players and PC players don't play together on the same servers. It's not some kid with a controller versus me with a mouse and WASD.

Also, if you read any gaming forums where this topic comes up, it seems to be consistently around 80% of players who have the opinion that they see no need for a new generation of consoles in the next couple of years. They are entirely happy playing on consoles that have hardware from 2005 that was already a little dated back then and could just barely keep up with 2005's PC hardware at the time, and is significantly farther behind PC hardware six years later. They just don't see a need for anything more than they have now.

Personally, I don't see how any geek can say "more new awesome stuff with more power and more whiz-bang? naw, don't give me that. I just want the same old thing". More power is always better.

It's already 2011. I'm ready for some systems that have more than 256mb of RAM. A fucking calculator watch has more RAM than that, these days. And something that can hold more than a mere 9gb of data (DVD). And something that is capable of more multiplayer numbers than most games currently run at (12-24), which isn't even half of the numbers Battlefield 2 did on the PC about six years ago.

Hell, the developers of MAG (Zipper studios) has been fighting console limitations since before the game came out. Every time they add or change something, they're forced to remove something else, due to very tight memory constraints.

Re:Not only graphics

[dave562]

You can adjust the sensitivity on the aimer. It have it cranked up pretty high on MoH.

Re:Not only graphics

[dave562]

You're right. I was a PC elitist for the longest time. I grew up playing FPS games on the PC. I eventually got tired of playing against hackers with their damn aimbots and wallhacks. I bought a PS3 and haven't looked back. The only game I play on the PC now is WoW. Everything else I do on the PS3. Like others have said, when everyone else is using the same interface as you are, it doesn't matter that you don't have a keyboard or mouse. I'm 30+ years old and it took me about a week to build the synapses to be good with the PS3 controller. I'm sure it would take a teenager all of a couple hours to make the transition.

Re:Not only graphics

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I guess it depends on the games. Some games are more suited for a joypad/stick then others.

Re:Not only graphics

[Paracelcus]

A mouse in one hand and a Sidewinder Pro in the other, and a large LCD in front with stereo headphones.

With the pace of GPU evolution there is absolutely no way that console makers can keep up.

Re:Not only graphics

[SiChemist]

The best arguement I can come up with in the Console vs PC war is that the console is much more of a social gaming experience than the PC is.

That describes my gaming experience now. If a game doesn't have a 2-4 player split screen mode, I don't bother. Console gaming is an excuse to hang out with friends, drink beer and eat pizza.

Re:Not only graphics

[DavidTC]

Indeed. I don't actually check requirements anymore, even though I should. I don't buy a lot of games, but I didn't even consider the requirements for Fallout: New Vegas and Civ V, the last two 'graphic intensive' games I bought.

And my machine is about five years old, I'm pretty certain I got it in 2006. It started with Vista, so 2006 or 2007. (It is now W7, of course.) It's starting to show its age, the built-in network starting being weird so I had to stick a PCI card in, but brand-new games still run fine.

Man, I remember when a machine five years old wouldn't run anything. Try playing Doom the year it came out with a five-year old machines.

Now days I just install stuff, and it runs. Sure, when I first got it, games wanted to max everything, and now they've backed off one notch, so I suppose I could get better graphics if I upgraded video cards...but why?

And this wasn't some super expensive high-end thing then, either. The whole thing was about $300, IIRC. (I had to start from scratch because my last system was AGP, so the only thing I wouldn't need to buy was a hard drive...but I bought one of those anyway so I could use the old computer as a HDPC.)

Hilariously, I eventually had exactly the same Phenom problem on ME2 that the other poster mentioned. ME2 did not like three-CPU processors or something. Easy enough to fix.

Re:Not only graphics

[CronoCloud]

Should I assume you don't have a PS3? It isn't optional for PS3 games, it isn't actually an "install" per se, more of a cache, but the game won't really start till it does.

Re:Not only graphics

[dougmc]

Seems to me the answer should be simple -- the consoles should sell a keyboard (perhaps just something with remappable keys rather than a full keyboard if they don't want it used as an actual keyboard on a computer) and mouse for their units, and suggest that game developers support it.

Then people have the choice. Of course, this will hobble those who use controllers in FPS games -- they'll get pwned -- so they'll all have to switch. A pain? Maybe, but I think the limitation should be my own skill and reflexes, not my interface.

Re:Not only graphics

[Jake Griffin]

For the common layman like me, a midrange quad core with a midrange video card is all I need.

Maybe so, but how much you wanna bet your "midrange quad core" and "midrange video card" cost more than my XBOX 360 Elite?

Re:Not only graphics

[Jake Griffin]

Spend on the video card and the box will perform well throughout a typical consoles lifetime (this generation is odd as seen in TFA).

Maybe, but you'll end up paying a lot more for a high end video card than you will for an entire game console (or two).

Re:Not only graphics

[Facegarden]

You also need a PC with keyboard and mouse for precise controls. That's something consoles don't offer. There is no way you can use console to shoot me as fast as I can shoot you with a mouse. As soon as I see you, you are dead.

I hate using a keyboard and mouse. Its the only thing that has prevented me from every really picking up PC gaming. I know people who get used to it claim better accuracy (and tests seem to back that up), but as someone else here mentioned, if everyone is on a controller, its still even. And I love the Xbox 360 controller.
-Taylor

Re:Not only graphics

[Amyntas]

On the topic of PC controls VS console controllers, I had my friend over who is absolutely obsessed with MW2, he's also an Xbox fan-boy and thinks himself a pro.

I set up a multi-player game between the both of us on two PCs. We plugged a controller into the box he was using, and I played with my mouse and keyboard on my box. His ass was thoroughly kicked, to say the least.

There were a few key things I noticed when I played that match. Slow movements, lots shots trailing behind me ( his running target ) and VERY poor aiming regarding close combat. There were no *spur of the moment* times where he spun around and fired a perfect shot.

I'd personally always stick with the mouse, as when you move the mouse a set *distance*, your view in-game will rotate an amount proportional to that distance moved. So one swift movement can point you in the direction you want.
A joystick on the other hand deals with a movement *speed* and *direction* and thus amount your joystick moves merely influences rotation, while the time held influences direction.
The mouse in my opinion is far more straight forward, intuitive, and overall more functional, though I am not saying that people cannot achieve equal levels of accuracy with a joystick.

Re:Not only graphics

[DavidTC]

The rest of my PC I _already have_, and would already have even if I didn't use it for gaming at all.

Yeah, this is a point that almost always get skipped.

Every single person on slashdot owns a computer, to within statistical margin of error. Everyone hear debating is debating via a computer they own.

And in general, I would be astonished if more than 1% of households with consoles in them did not have a computer. And 90% of that 1% of households probably have a Wii, which is not really what we're talking about here. All gamers have a computer.(Please do not think I'm dissing Wiis, which are amazing ideas, an epic win for Nintendo. You got my mom to buy a game console! My mom! You broke the entire damn product market. But they aren't really in this discussion.)

Now, so all households with gamers own a computer. Maybe 20% of those households do not have one that 'could have been' a gaming computer...they only have Macs or laptops or something.

But for the other 80%, the question isn't 'What is the price of a console compared to a reasonably powerful computer?'. Everything thinks that, but it's not right.

The question is 'What is the price of a console compared to simply purchasing a $100 video card and maybe another gig of memory?'. They already have a computer. Everyone already has a damn computer. This is 2011!

Now, there are other reasons to get a console, but the comparison isn't '$200-$300 PC' vs the console price...it's a $100 video card for the PC you probably already have vs. the console price. Unless you only have laptops or Macs or something, then, sure, you'd have to build a whole computer, but that's not normally true.

And $100 is plenty fine for a video card, you do not need to spend $250 or whatever 'half a PS2' is. ;) I always go somewhere between $100 and $150 when buying a new one, which I have to do about three times a decade.

Re:Not only graphics

[Unkyjar]

You want more precise controls? Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_tag

The controls are as fast as you are. ^_^

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Well ofcourse you do, as you have aimbots built into the game. Without them, you can't hit shit.

Re:Not only graphics

[geekoid]

Except now console are PCs. Just PC's you have less control over.

Going away are the days when you could pop in a game and it will 'just work' now that they are all on the net and have Hard Drives, they are going through the exact same thing the PC when through in the 90s.

With the ease of updating will come more needed updates.

And we are far way from the upgrade cycles that used to be needed 10 years ago.

For the record I have all three console and PCs and I game on all of them. My bias is only to the game being fun.

Re:Not only graphics

[oji-sama]

Multiscreen isn't actually very expensive at all. (Unless we're talking about multiscreen gaming...) Just add a cheapish monitor, pretty much all display adapters support them. And having two screens is worth it. Personally, I like to have one a bit better screen, but the second can be pretty much anything.

Re:Not only graphics

[geekoid]

wow, you live in an interesting world where VAC works against series cheaters, and there are more people hacking consoles to cheat then there are on the PC.

Re:Not only graphics

[somersault]

It's superior in terms of precision, but it's also kind of relaxing to just be able to be able to relax on your sofa and keep your hands in a neutral position rather than always be moving your arm around. I'm not going to pretend like it's tiring playing PC games as it's clearly fine, I'm sure I gamed on PC for ~18 hours some days as a teenager - but I think perhaps that console gaming is better for reducing chance of RSI in your wrist at least.. and just generally kicking back.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Afaik almost all current gen console games require or at least recommend installation. And still require you to actually lift your ass from sofa and put the disc in. Doesn't seem that convenient to me.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

I play Unreal on my PS3 console with a mouse and a keyboard that I plug into the USB port. That same game can be played without these devices, and with the standard Sixaxis PS3 controller. Other games fall in the same scheme. While it is true that not all games offer this feature, your argument "that's something consoles don't offer" is factually false.

Re:Not only graphics

[Happy Nuclear Death]

It doesn't take a lot to look "good enough," when you're developing for a 42" display at 1920x1080 (a whopping 50-ish dpi!).

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell they are. I have more friends who've hacked on Xbox live than I do friends who hack on PC. At least with PC you can have nicely admin'd dedicated servers.

Re:Not only graphics

[quacking duck]

I'm new to console gaming, got a PS3 after Christmas and GT5 a few weeks later. Right off the bat GT5 required an update. I suppose in the strictest sense it's "optional" but why wouldn't you want to start fresh with the current version?

The update was almost 650 MB, took over half an hour to download and install.

Then the first attempt at copying (caching) data to the hard drive failed after about 20 minutes. The second attempt, despite its laughably inaccurate "45 seconds remaining" estimate, took over an hour.

So all told, almost two hours to *start* playing, and subsequent updates to both system and games are required every third time I try kicking back for an hour or two of racing. The benefit of console gaming over PC gaming has decidedly blurred.

Re:Not only graphics

[MrPater]

Yea then you have to put up with super lame loading times as all the data has to come off the disk. So much fun.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in PC gaming recently there haven't been many games pushing the latest hardware to the limits.

Thats usually because most PC games are being held back by developers pandering to console version limitations from the very start of the development cycle.

Do you have a source to backup this claim ?

Re:Not only graphics

[Seumas]

I'd love to see a list of these games you're having perfect experiences with right out of the box, because that is the opposite of what I seem most people exieriencing, these days. Take Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, for example. Buggy, glitchy, and for a lot of people, completely unplayable. Go check out the Steam forums for examples of people having nightmares just getting the game not to crash when running for a few minutes. People are still having major problems with Fallout 3 and it was released a couple years ago.

Also, these "golly, I don't even know what my computer is, but stuff just by gone works in it, I tell you what!" people are a lot like people who say "the Wii is all I need for videogame playing and I'm perfectly happy with standard def and 4:3 content!". Well, that's great for you. And that's why iPhone games like Angry Birds are such huge sellers. But that's not entirely representative.

PC gaming continues to be plagued with problems. In fact, I tend to feel they're even worse than they used to be, because developers (except for Dice with BF3, for example) are treating the PC as a secondary platform that they deploy on as an afterthought, meaning it's less QAd and less refined.

Also, I wouldn't really say that Starcraft2 is a good benchmark for claiming that an old machine is just dandy for the biggest and bestest new titles. Starcraft2 was designed with extreme care and great attention afforded to low end systems (consider where the biggest amount of SC2 gaming occurs . . . ). Tell me if you get the same satisfying experience with New Vegas, Bulletstorm, a new MMO, Civ V, or Dragon Age II (which seems to have some fairly big optimization problems).

Of course, this is all assuming you're running at a modern-ish resolution, too. If you're running at 1280x1024 or 1600x or something, then of course you're still getting pretty good performance.

As attention continues to be paid primarily only to the console side of the equation, I fully expect this to get worse. Especially since people seem to have less desire for a desktop system. A few of us will continue to buy desktops for video games, but most people don't do that. Most people have computers and they figure they might as well play some games on them while they have a chance. When it comes down to it, their computer will handle their browsing and email for years to come. Long after they can run modern games on them anywhere near as they're meant to be experienced. And when that happens, those people don't think "time for a new computer!". They either don't game beyond some facebook or free to play game or they drop $300 on a console and play console games, instead.

Re:Not only graphics

[Mia'cova]

Did you not notice that the companies here license their technology? When Epic makes a blockbuster game, they're proving their technology for others to follow. You can expect them to dive into state of the art PC development as a proving ground for the next generation of consoles. Similarly, you can see them working on projects targeting the next generation of mobile devices. But they will always be looking at the most recent top of the line PCs. That's how they get people interested in licensing their technology for the next console generation.

Re:Not only graphics

[Seumas]

Yeah, see, I don't get this. That sounds an awful lot like my friend who only has a CRT television and says he can't understand how HD or 16:9 or anything could possibly be any better. I mean, watching Perry Mason on your black and white 13" 4:3 CRT in the kitchen sitting next to your rotary land line phone is fine if it satisfies all your needs, but it's kind of naive to suggest that's the experience everyone else has or wants.

On the other hand, I remember when CCP introduced the new Trinity graphics engine for EVE-Online and people fucking lost their shit over it. There was a whopping 1.4 percent (or something like that) of players who had systems that did not support Shader Model 3 in the new engine and because of the amount of effort required to continue testing and developing the older graphics that supported Shader Model 2, they found that it wasn't worth it for the few people it addressed.

Of course, any card in any system that was less than five or seven (I forget which) years old at the time already supported SM3, so it shouldn't have been a big deal. But there are always a handful of people that don't see why they can't run the newest software on their 18lb Superlap 386 from 1987.

That's a slightly different then, granted, than merely lowering the graphics of your game so you can enjoy it on a low-end computer. And as you point out, that's much more possible to do in 2011 than it was in 2005 or 2000. We've reached a point where you can maintain lower fidelity and performance as needed without reaching a break-point.

Re:Not only graphics

[frieko]

And you'll never be able to shoot me as dead with your PC as I can with my real gun. Does that mean real war is more fun than Modern Warfare? It's a pointless comparison.

Re:Not only graphics

[Seumas]

That's a really oversimplified way of looking at it. As a life-long hard core PC gamer who didn't cozy up to consoles *at all* until just a few years ago, I'm completely fine acknowledging that many games are a much better experience on the console. Not MMOs or strategy games, of course. And not some FPSes (especially multiplayer).

I'm not even talking about the fact that even the highest end computer isn't running with a 65" screen and a high end audio system like your home theater is. Or that your computer is on a desk in front of an office chair, like you probably spend most of your life in already, instead of on a nice comfy beanbag or sofa or lounger, like your television. I'm just talking about the presentation itself, the controls, and the pretty decent online experience (as far as match-making and number of people to play with).

Saying one is definitely an ideal while the other has no redeeming value is kind of silly. I have all the consoles and a sweet rig and I enjoy them all equally.

Well, not the Wii, because I haven't touched that since it came out (I don't even know where the hell it is, right now) . . . but everything *else* . . . :P

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

If I developed games, why would I target the PC market with one really cool game that can only run if buyers spend $1000 to upgrade last year's octo-core 5.8 GHz 16 GB computer to this year's 32-core, 7.3 GHz 128 GB computer? I can make a butt ton of cash by targeting all consoles and PCs with a game that has the same gameplay but doesn't use the latest ray tracing graphics engine.

Why would you do that? You can have your cake and eat it too. We have this thing called "scaling". Ask Crytek about it some time, it's the reason why Crysis can exist on consoles' pathetic obsolete hardware and yet still make modern PCs sweat if you crank the detail right up.

Crysis sold really well on PC, despite the fact that its gameplay totally sucked. Huh, I guess there's a market for high-end products after all. Who knew?

Re:Not only graphics

[Haeleth]

Crytek et al mope about because of low sales of their "you need to be this rich to run our game" high-requirement, high-cost output.

Right. That's why they rushed out an expansion and then got right to work on the sequel. That's practically the definition of "moping about because of low sales" right there.

It's true that a new Call of Duty game can sell more copies on release day than Crysis ever did. In other news, Ford sells more cars than Ferrari. And yet somehow both Crytek and Ferrari still appear to be profitable.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

You also need a PC with keyboard and mouse for precise controls. That's something consoles don't offer. There is no way you can use console to shoot me as fast as I can shoot you with a mouse. As soon as I see you, you are dead.

That precision is unnecessary for 99.99999% of games. There is no good reason for a shooter to have the precision of a mouse, and that is so elitist. There is no need for anything to rotate exactly as fast as a mouse moves. How do you justify something needing to rotate at arbitrary speeds, as defined by user input, or the precision of a mouse, again arbitrary, varying from system to system? A game letting you MOVE as fast as you can throw a mouse would be unfair, but rotating at 10000 RPM is OK? A virtual pointing device more accurate & accurate than a rifle fired from 30^H^H10 yards is OK?? These are not things a game NEEDS that consoles lack. This is crap done to make a mouse usable as game input.

You already have what, 16 different buttons on a PS controller, more than enough to lose track of and dissuade casual players. More, if you count using easily accessible buttons as modifiers. Not as many as a keyboard with or without modifiers, but your game is horribly flawed if it _NEEDS_ more than that.

Sure consoles hold back the state of the art in gaming visuals, sure they typically don't cater to the elitist gamer.
Instead they provide a consistent, accessible platform for the masses. If you don't want to target THEM, then by all means, target the crowd with 2G of VRAM, 4G+ RAM, and _require_ use of 16+ buttons to play. What's holding you back man?

Re:Not only graphics

[cvtan]

So you are the guy.

Re:Not only graphics

[PReDiToR]

I use this to play games.
Haven't had much in the way of arm waving in the last ten years.

I'm not a hard core gamer though, and the trade offs between accuracy and comfort suit me just fine.

Re:Not only graphics

[PraiseBob]

As much as I'd like to agree with you, there is one problem. Only 1 in 3 computers sold is a desktop, maybe less. Laptop sales outpace desktops by a very large margin. Anyone in the 18-25 college student age range owns a laptop first, and only owns a desktop if they are a techie or gamer.

Re:Not only graphics

[whereiswaldo]

I also grew very tired of buying the latest and greatest hardware to play games. When I run a game on a console, I *know* it will work well.

Console graphics are great - sure they're not quite as good as what's available on a high end PC, but who cares? If you need the latest PC graphics capabilities to make your game good, then maybe your game is lacking in concept.

I don't plan on going back to PC gaming except for basic games that don't require an upgrade.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

PC developers also want to capture the large part of the PC market that aren't running bleeding edge machines, and don't constantly upgrade to the lastest graphics card.

Re:Not only graphics

[residieu]

I pay more for a better overall gaming experience, and a machine I can use beyond gaming as well.

Re:Not only graphics

[Luckyo]

This is reality. There have been several cross-platform xbox+PC shooters where PC versions mouse controls had to be neutered to provide a semblance of a level playing field (and console players still got butchered en masse).

Nowadays there's usually a very powerful aim assist which only requires people with controller to "shoot approximately in that direction", and PC side gets forced mouse smoothing etc mouse nerfs. Bulletstorm was a great example of this - we had to crack the encryption of .ini files and find the option to disable mouse smoothing in tens of kilobytes of .ini crap and aim assist in that game was brutal - I could get headshots almost half of the time just by pointing pistol at a target and pressing the trigger when aim assist was on.

Re:Not only graphics

[Hadlock]

that can only run if buyers spend $1000 to upgrade last year's octo-core 5.8 GHz 16 GB computer to this year's 32-core, 7.3 GHz 128 GB computer

 
That might have been true three years ago, but a $700 computer (incl 22" display) bought today is roughly twice as powerful as an xbox 360. A $300 computer with a 9800gts ($100 card) will play xbox 360 ports all day long at 720p @ 30fps on the desktop. Putting a $250 video card into that i3 box will net you 1080p @ 45fps in the crop of games coming out this fall in 2011 (for a total cost of $550). Consoles are built on bleeding edge 2006 technology, which is laughable by today's standards, and console ports are becoming much more efficient on the PC.

Re:Not only graphics

[pckl300]

When I run a game on a console, I *know* it will work well.

Even that is not guaranteed anymore. Lots of console games these days ship with performance issues, even the big budget games. Look at Halo: Reach or any Madden game of the last 5 years.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest perceived advantage that a console has over a PC is ease of use. There is no installation to worry about. You simply put the CD in the drive and play. You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games. I don't know if this last point is true or not, but that perception is pretty prevalent in my experience.

No, not at all. You just have to pay $90(Au) per controller. Plus, if you had an older XBox (for instance) you'd need to buy the wifi adapter. And maybe a bigger hard-drive. And maybe even a cooling station. Plus you have to pay for subscription, on top of any internet fees. Plus, in Australia, you're usually paying a $10 to $20 premium for latest release AAA Titles (I've seen up to $120Au for games like GTA IV at launch, as opposed to $89 to $99AU for the PC version). It adds up.

Re:Not only graphics

[Cimexus]

Thing is, I don't think you do need to be constantly on the upgrade treadmill anymore in PC-land. The rate of improvement in hardware has levelled off dramatically (and is mostly GPU-bound these days rather than CPU or IO-bound).

This is a far cry from when I started PC gaming in the 90s, and every single new game that was released needed a huge upgrade to get it to perform well. An example most people would be familiar with:

Wolf3D (1992): ran well on a 386 or low end 486 (25 or 33 Mhz). 4 MB of RAM was fine.
Doom/Heretic/Hexen series (1993-1995): by now you were really needing a 486 and preferably a DX2/66 or DX4/100 (I had the latter). 8MB of RAM was plenty.
Quake (1996): though this would run on a high end 486, you only got ~10 fps out of it which wasn't very playable. An upgrade to a Pentium 150 or so did the trick here. You also needed 16, and preferably 32 or more MB of RAM.

All these games released within a four year period. So if you bought a mid-high end PC each time, you probably needed 2 or 3 PC upgrades during this period to play the latest games. Not cheap ones either: full mobo and CPU replacements in most cases, and additional RAM. RAM particularly was hellishly expensive in that era.

By comparison my current PC is 4 years old now. It still runs new releases fine on decent (if not maximum) detail settings. And if I need to upgrade, since things are so GPU-bound now I could spend only $200-$300 on a newer graphics card and be good for another few years. So I would definitely say the gaming PC upgrade cycle is nowhere, nowhere near as bad as it used to be. You now only need to do a major PC upgrade probably as frequently as you'd buy a new console anyway.

Re:Not only graphics

[monkyyy]

agree, when will games start using multiple screens for muti-player, and more mice & keyboards

Re:Not only graphics

[monkyyy]

you forgot how much xboxs brake, rather then something you probably could fix your self on a pc, you are sending it back to mircosoft (if its in warranty) with slow shipping both ways

Re:Not only graphics

[Cimexus]

FPS, RTS, (MMO)RPG: PC.

Platformer, racing, fighting, simpler or single-player RPGs: console.

Some genres are strong on one platform and comparatively weak on the other. FPSes are better on PC but still perfectly playable on consoles. Some games though really ONLY work on one or the other: RTS springs to mind. As do platformers and arcade-style fighting games (these can work on PC if you use a gamepad obviously, but on a keyboard they are ridiculous).

RPGs are an interesting bunch because it really depends on the complexity of the game. MMOs only really work well on PCs because you need to be able to communicate via typing to other players and you generally have a LOT of interface buttons/skills to press. But more traditional RPGs/adventure games where you have less to control work better on consoles (think FF, Zelda, etc. type games). Something like Diablo could work well on a console I think with a few UI tweaks. I wonder if Blizzard is thinking of releasing D3 for consoles as well as PC?

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

"Better overall gaming experience" is your opinion and subjective. And if you think consoles are only for gaming, you're just wrong. There are all kinds of applications included with consoles now, like Last.FM, Netflix, playing dvds and, in some cases BluRay, etc. Granted though, PCs do all those things and more.

Re:Not only graphics

[Cimexus]

Sounds like you've had a bad run with hardware in the past. I honestly can't remember the last time I had any form of driver problem on a PC ... would probably have been the early XP era. Provided you are buying even vaguely well known brands of hardware you shouldn't have a problem. Particularly for graphics cards you can always just go to nvidia.com or ati.com and download the reference drivers that work with everything. And I'm yet to have Win 7 (or later revisions of Win XP) fail to correctly recognise a mobo, sound card or other bit of hardware.

I haven't had a game (or anything else) hard crash on me either, for a long time. In fact I've had console games freeze up on me more than PC games in the last 5 years. Again, it mostly comes down to buying quality hardware. Freezes and bluescreens are almost always a hardware problem: overheating, dodgy RAM, insufficient voltage being supplied to your AGP slot (that one took me a while to diagnose! wasn't on my machine though, it was on some cheap POS). I will admit that if you're only going to spend console amounts of money, PC gaming is going to suck pretty hard. But build your own mid or high-range system using good, well-reviewed products, and you honestly shouldn't have any issues at all.

I'm pretty platform agnostic: I have both a gaming PC and a console or two. Certain genres of games work better on one platform than the other ... I certainly wouldn't say the PC platform flat out sucks (it's the only serious platform for MMOs, RTSes, and some other genres). Yes it has its drawbacks but those drawbacks are far less than they used to be (in terms of constant need to upgrade, stability etc.).

Re:Not only graphics

[Cimexus]

Huh? There are hackers aplenty on console games, just as with PC games.

Not just in multiplayer games either: so many console games have hacked leaderboards with people posting obviously impossible scores/times etc...

Re:Not only graphics

[monkyyy]

when it comes to controls pc beats all, i got a 5 dollar 2-ps2-to-usb converter, you can have touch screens,joysticks, racing wheels etc.(even for wiimote but it probaly not the best support) for cheaper
and if the game doesnt support it? easy 3rd party software,(still looking for a joystick to abs pos mouse, but only for one pc only game thats very strange)
custom button configs, for everything

then of course indie games live unrestrained here

Re:Not only graphics

[Nirvelli]

Call of Duty: Black Ops is actually the first major Xbox game to allow you to turn off auto-aim.
Ever since the original Halo, every other Xbox game has had what many call a "sticky reticle." It does help you aim in some instances, but in my experience people are frustrated with is just as much as it helps (it consistently pulls your sights away from your target when someone else runs between you).
In Black Ops, I've watched people do horrible with the sticky aim on, and top the scoreboard with all aim assists completely off. It really doesn't provide that much of an advantage.

Re:Not only graphics

[mikael_j]

I'm not even talking about the fact that even the highest end computer isn't running with a 65" screen and a high end audio system like your home theater is. Or that your computer is on a desk in front of an office chair, like you probably spend most of your life in already, instead of on a nice comfy beanbag or sofa or lounger, like your television. I'm just talking about the presentation itself, the controls, and the pretty decent online experience (as far as match-making and number of people to play with

Well, most people don't have 65" TVs, they're more likely to have a 32" or 40" TV. OTOH 22" and even 24" monitors are becoming quite common among "regular folk" (while us geeks have multi-monitor setups with 27" or 30" monitors these days) so considering the difference between sitting 10' away from a 40" TV and 3' away from a 24" monitor I'd take the latter.

As for the audio, for most people you do have a point. OTOH a lot of gamers who play online games use headsets (even us "casuals" find it to be useful for immersion a lot of the time).

As for the chair, for extended gaming sessions my computer chair (actually an old and very comfortable armchair with a swivel base) beats my sofa easily, the sofa is great for watching movies or sitting around talking to other people in the same room but for gaming it's just not very comfy.

So yeah, if you already have a really comfortable sofa/armchair/beanbag in your living room, a huge TV or a 1080p projector and a high end audio system while you don't have a computer then it might make sense but for most people I meet it just seems like they are more likely to have a good computer than a good home entertainment system...

Re:Not only graphics

[ipwndk]

On PC you can choose where it is you play. I'm sure the experience can be horrible at bad places. A lot of people just chose the first and best server that have players on it, and a map of their choice. But then they just got to suck up whatever experience they find at that server. I absolutely hate the lobby system on the console, but I think you are right that it can be better in that there are little to no cheaters. However the chance of you grouping with pleasant people are slim. What I've done for the past ten years, is simply to play at a certain set of servers, often belonging to the same community. It takes some time to find those servers of course, but I think it is worth it. Then I get to know the community, and become a part of it. Cheaters and hackers are reported, and since I know the population of the community, it's trivial to record it and send it to an administrator. Thus cheaters and hackers are banned in the matter of a few hours. The community I belong to now also encourage good behaviour, so excessive name calling, mocking etc. are also punished in various way. So it takes some work I suppose. Good thing however is that by using the time to get myself into a community of gamers, I now have 70+ friends that I know are decent players and pleasant human beings. Since it is on Steam, this then crosses out into other games; a bunch of those are bound to buy the same games I do. My experience on the Xbox 360, admittedly four years ago, when I just bought it for the exclusive title of Gears of War, was horrible. I had to attach the headset, such that I could put it under a pillow, because people were shouting profanity constantly, and unless I attached the headset I'd hear it from my sound system :| So I'm biased towards PC; I tried to play online on a console for a week, found it absolutely horrible, and returned to my PC and the people I knew there.

Re:Not only graphics

[drsquare]

PC games mustn't be that much fun if you need to keep distracting yourself from them.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

lets play an fps of your choice.. you use wiimote and I'll use my mouse.. wanna place bets on the winner?

Re:Not only graphics

[mcvos]

- No complex strategy games like Civilization, no good RTS games, very few decent RPG games.

This is the big one for me. All my favourite games are only for PC. Consoles may be fine for shooters and platformers, but good strategy games really do require a mouse, and for some reason, good CRPGs only seem to appear on PC. Consoles seem to aim for the more casual market. In fact, an established PC franchise creating a console version is usually a sign that the next version is going to suck.

Re:Not only graphics

[mcvos]

Except precise controls have never been something that most people who play video games cares about. It's really not that much of an advantage except in twitch games like multiplayer COD. You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect. They just need to be good enough.

Strategy games really do require a mouse if you want to select a unit or item without having to cycle through a dozen of them. Also, for some mysterious reason, the best CRPGs seem to be released only for PC. In the CRPG community, a console version of a game is taken as a sign that the game is going to suck.

Re:Not only graphics

[Kjella]

And in general, I would be astonished if more than 1% of households with consoles in them did not have a computer.

I think the part you missed is that almost everyone has a laptop with a crappy non-upgradable IGP. Many of those who have a desktop have it for the discrete graphics card, if you didn't need it you would have a laptop instead. Don't get me wrong, I like my desktop + nettop combination but we're in a minority.

Re:Not only graphics

[mcvos]

You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games.

Unless you intentionally buy the BARE MINIMUM components on an upgrade then the PC is going to be good for years likely. So yes, if you go into a PC upgrade with extreme penny pinching then maybe you'll need another upgrade soon. No serious gamer with some discretionary income should be doing that, as that will waste far more money in the long term. Spend on the video card and the box will perform well throughout a typical consoles lifetime (this generation is odd as seen in TFA).

You shouldn't go for the bare minimum, but you shouldn't go for the extreme high-end cutting edge stuff either. That tends to be excessively expensive, and it's just going to last a few months longer than the cheaper brother of that same hardware.

Here's my advice for buying for the long term:
* CPU: go for good price/performance ratio, a bit towards the high-end. Don't bother squeezing that extra .2 GHz out of it. In general, CPUs are plenty fast.
* Memory: go for bog-standard average stuff. Faster special memory gets very expensive. However, it's worth getting something that will still be available in a couple of years, because you're going to need some extra memory eventually. Quite often, lack of sufficient memory is the real speed bottleneck, not CPU.
* Motherboard: take something standard, well-established, but don't skimp on it. Keep an eye on what the future holds for the kind of slots you need, because you're not going to upgrade your motherboard. Everything else is upgradable, but if you need a new motherboard, you might as well buy a new PC.
* Graphics card: this is often the big one, especially for shooters and other high-graphics games. Because it's so important, people tend to spend a fortune on it, and a few years later, they need to spend another fortune on it to get the latest high-end stuff again. Do not get the best of the best. Like every other component in your PC, it should cost between $100 and $200. Get the budget version of something good. Something that will find its way in many PCs, so everybody will want to support it. Something that can handle the latest games, but doesn't cost too much. The less you spend on it, the less it will hurt when you upgrade it.

Really, there's only one big rule for buying a PC: no component should cost more than $200. Most components will cost between $100 and $200. $100 gets you an excellent motherboard, $150 gets you an excellent CPU, $150 gets you a very decent graphics card. $100 gets you plenty of memory for now. Add $100 for case + power supply and $100 for harddisk and other stuff, and you've got an excellent gaming rig for $700. When in a few years' time it struggles with the graphics of the latest shooter, spend $150 on a new graphics card. Is it struggling with a big game while you've got a browser open in the background? Buy some extra memory.

(Note: this is all based on my limited experience buying gaming PCs that I'm satisfied with. It's also based on Euro prices that I converted 1:1 to dollars. The exchange rate has gone quite a bit downhill, so maybe you need to add 10-50% to the prices. I'm not making any guarantees whatsoever. But my basic message is: don't spend too much. A gaming rig can be affordable if you want it to be.)

Re:Not only graphics

[bronney]

Dude what really fry your noodles is if you play yourself on an xbox with a pc, who roasts who.

Re:Not only graphics

[grumbel]

I find the argument of mouse/keyboard vs controller to pointless most of the time.

The argument gets especially pointless with modern games. In times of Quake and Unreal, sure, flinging the mouse around as fast as you can was part of the game, but many modern games try to actually model a real human being, with weight and all, not just a floating cylinder, thus turn speed, quite naturally is limited. Also I just love how PC gamers always ignore that the keyboard is an damn ugly control device, no analog support, no rumble, no analog triggers, button mappings often in hard to reach places, etc.

Whenever a PC game offers me to use the controller, I use the controller.

Re:Not only graphics

[grumbel]

On the PS3 it is frequently not an option, but an actual requirement, can't play the game without install, in the worst case (Metal Gear 4), you can't even switch chapters in the game without a partial reinstall. Also half the time when I switch on my PS3 a new firmware or game upgrade is waiting, which needs to be installed. Downloads on the PS3 also need to be installed after being downloaded, the system doesn't do that automatically. Consoles are of course still easier to use, but they have become pretty horrible this generation, a PC running Steam isn't far of.

The main advantage however that consoles still have is that you don't have to care about the OS (aside from HDD getting full). Windows often gets funky and launches an IO heavy background process or something that can really wreak the gaming experience. So while the resolution is higher and the graphics better, I have far more issues with random stuttering in PC games then on consoles, time for a Vista reinstall I guess.

Re:Not only graphics

[mcvos]

Everyone hear debating is debating via a computer they own.

Not necessarily. It could be their employer's computer.

The question is 'What is the price of a console compared to simply purchasing a $100 video card and maybe another gig of memory?'. They already have a computer. Everyone already has a damn computer. This is 2011!

Now, there are other reasons to get a console, but the comparison isn't '$200-$300 PC' vs the console price...it's a $100 video card for the PC you probably already have vs. the console price. Unless you only have laptops or Macs or something, then, sure, you'd have to build a whole computer, but that's not normally true.

And $100 is plenty fine for a video card, you do not need to spend $250 or whatever 'half a PS2' is. ;) I always go somewhere between $100 and $150 when buying a new one, which I have to do about three times a decade.

I agree wholeheartedly. Many gamers spend too much on their video card, but if you've got an otherwise decent PC, getting a $100-$150 video card will turn it into a perfectly fine gaming machine.

Re:Not only graphics

[mcvos]

That's a good point. But even laptops can be adequate gaming PCs if you get one with a decent video card. They're harder to upgrade, though.

Re:Not only graphics

[mcvos]

You're missing the point that he's emphasizing a different point: that PCs offer a kind of convenience that consoles can't match. Consoles offer a different kind of convenience, but not everybody is looking for the same kind of convenience.

Re:Not only graphics

[mcvos]

You prefer turn-based strategy with a console?

Also, in CRPGs I also quite like being able to click in the distance and have my guy find his way there automatically, rather than having to steer him there all the way.

Re:Not only graphics

[mcvos]

DRM problems aren't caused by the PC, they're caused by idiot publishers. Most of those seem to be moving towards consoles, though.

Re:Not only graphics

[Jorth]

Marvel Vs. Capcom 3, insert disc, game loads, "This will now be installed to your HDD" or whatever it said.

Re:Not only graphics

[Jurily]

Only flaw is turning is slow.

In WoW, the term keyboard turner is the highest insult.

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

"It seems like with an Xbox-style controller I can be either fast or precise depending on the sensitivity setting, but it is quite difficult to achieve both. It often ends up being a balance or a trade-off."

People had the same problem when +mlook first became popular with mice too, it's really just about getting used to the controller.

"I think it's partly because the mouse can cover more ground more swiftly. I can flick it across the mousepad in a fraction of a second"

Who really uses the full mousepad? Personally when I was in my FPS prime doing very well in Quake tournaments I had sensitivity turned right up so that my wrist movements only needed to be absolutely minimal and it was mostly just finger movements to slightly move the mouse for precise aiming.

"Also, a mouse cursor usually has an acceleration setting that makes the sensitivity setting less important."

So do a lot of console games.

A lot of criticism against console controllers seems to come from the same misconceptions- PC gamers who simply haven't put anywhere near the hours in to getting used to a control pad that they have a mouse and then wonder why they're not as good on a controller they're just not used to. There's this view that there is a big difference between the controllers, but console pads now always have analog sticks that still provide a wide range of values like a mouse can. There's no real inherent disadvantage to control pads for console games.

The thing that does bug me about console games and that I can understand annoying PC gamers is that in PC games you're pretty much expected to be already experienced with mouselook, but on the console they cater for the lowest common denominator which means including things like snap to target, which almost encourages people to be sloppy with their controller usage.

One game that did drive home for me the fact that console controllers absolutely can allow people with the time invested in them to show there skill is Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising. Per pixel aiming was important because bullet physics were realistic, so if you wanted to get a headshot at an extended range you had to fire above them for the round to arc down on them and with enemies advancing on you, hard to see snipers, coupled with the fact you could die in one round and so forth speed mattered too. I was easily playing that game to the same level you can play PC games with a mouse- getting fast, highly accurate shots.

With FPS games and controllers, it's all simply about experience.

Re:Not only graphics

[ran93r]

I still use one when I'm feeling lazy and can't be bothered to fish my G9 out from behind the monitor. I use one at work all day long so I'm pretty handy with it. The sensitivity settings are pretty high though, akin to how I have the mouse set up so I never have any problems turning. It does sometimes feel a little clunky compared to the mouse but it's a damn site closer to the mouse than a game controller.

Re:Not only graphics

[MareLooke]

Which is exactly the problem; even games like RPGs get turned into twitch-action consolers nowadays (*cough* Dragon Age 2 *cough*). You don't need all that shit to play a proper RPG or strategy game. In fact, you're much better of with the extra buttons and precision of a keyboard/mouse combo, as I'm sure everyone that tried to play DAO on a console will have found out.

Re:Not only graphics

[slim]

MMOs only really work well on PCs because you need to be able to communicate via typing to other players and you generally have a LOT of interface buttons/skills to press.

Hmm, but even the Dreamcast had a keyboard option -- its problem being that typically a console gamer isn't playing somewhere with a convenient surface for typing at. Nonetheless, I used one for Phantasy Star Online.

The Xbox 360 has a mini-keyboard add-on for the controller, but developers should prefer to use voice, since you're pretty much expected to have a headset on Xbox Live.

Re:Not only graphics

[mlush]

I recall that Microsoft tried adding PCs to the XBox network, but canned it because a mediocre player on a PC could trash the best players on an XBox.

Re:Not only graphics

[Vectormatic]

not per-see, for instance fable 3 (on the 360) has framerate issues in some areas, and the continuous disc-loading does cause some pop-up from time to time. Granted, the second issue could be solved by loading the dvd onto the hard drive, but not every console game offers 100% acceptable performance. Had it been a PC game, i could have chosen to either dail down the graphics a bit, or tweak my system (and possibly buy new parts) to make it run silky smooth all the time.

As it is, i dont care too much about it, since the game is smooth 95% of the time, and i can forgive some small hitches and lags, but it definitely doesnt offer the same perfectly tuned experience a pc game can deliver

Re:Not only graphics

[The Grim Reefer2]

That's a really oversimplified way of looking at it. As a life-long hard core PC gamer who didn't cozy up to consoles *at all* until just a few years ago, I'm completely fine acknowledging that many games are a much better experience on the console. Not MMOs or strategy games, of course. And not some FPSes (especially multiplayer).

I guess the difference is that I don't consider myself to be a "hard core" gamer. Perhaps at one time, but not these days. Hell, I have a GTS250 VGA in my system right now and a GTX465 sitting in a box somewhere that I haven't had the time to swap out.

I'm not even talking about the fact that even the highest end computer isn't running with a 65" screen and a high end audio system like your home theater is. Or that your computer is on a desk in front of an office chair, like you probably spend most of your life in already, instead of on a nice comfy beanbag or sofa or lounger, like your television.

I' have a 40' TV that I sit 10 feet way from and my main computer has dual 24" monitors. I mostly play FPS and an occasionally strategy games. In all honesty I prefer my office chair for playing these types of games. Plus I can play games on my laptop when I travel. Carrying a console would be crazy for me.I play games on Wii with my daughter, but in all honesty I've never played a game on it by myself.

I'm just talking about the presentation itself, the controls, and the pretty decent online experience (as far as match-making and number of people to play with).

I don't know what you mean by "the presentation". I tired to play an XBox game a while back, but in all honesty I didn't know the controller buttons well enough to really utilize it. I'm sure this makes me sound old (I guess I am actually) but there were too many buttons for me to learn for just one sitting.If I owned one, that would be different I'm sure. I know the keys on my keyboard and can usually remap them on a PC game. I also don't care about online gaming either.

Saying one is definitely an ideal while the other has no redeeming value is kind of silly. I have all the consoles and a sweet rig and I enjoy them all equally.

I never said a PC was ideal, just my preference. I also never said that consoles have no redeeming value.

Well, not the Wii, because I haven't touched that since it came out (I don't even know where the hell it is, right now) . . . but everything *else* . . . :P

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I prefer the PC versions of the types of games I enjoy, not that they are superior in every way. I too have a Wii which I also enjoy because these are games that I can play with my family. However I wouldn't play any of the Wii games by myself. Which, again, is where we differ. Not that either opinion is right or wrong, just different.

I wish you happy gaming btw.

Re:Not only graphics

[Coren22]

You're gay. About all that can be said to such as you.

Re:Not only graphics

[mr_gorkajuice]

This is one of those cases where you miss the "-1 Wrong" mod option.

Re:Not only graphics

[DavidTC]

Not necessarily. It could be their employer's computer.

I think the sane assumption is 'Everyone on slashdot either owns a computer or is near-homeless, in which case they're not going to buy a game console either.'.

Re:Not only graphics

[DavidTC]

There's a much larger difference between a SD TV and a HD TV than between anti-aliasing set at 8x instead of 16x.

I run at full resolution of my monitor. I run at whatever the game suggests, which is generally full graphic features except a couple of them, which are backed off slightly.

But the fact I don't see the need to spend another $120 to see some trees a mile away, or have shinier water. I'd rather have two more games. I'll probably upgrade the next time there's an actual new technology that I need, but right now my card supports DX11 just fine.

And that doesn't really have anything to do with my point, which is that now people can just spend $120 dollars and have the computer that everyone already owns turn into one that is entirely functional at playing games, even if after 5 years they have to start dialing down the graphics a tiny bit or spend another $120. That is the price comparison to a console, not the entire computer.

Re:Not only graphics

[DavidTC]

I don't think your 1 in 3 can possibly be true. Most computer sold are desktop, if only because of the business community buying them.

Maybe you mean only 1 in 3 computers sold to consumers, which is possible, I guess.

Of course, laptops can actually be decent gaming platforms, but you have to spec them in advance, so can't just upgrade, and it's probably $200 more, not $100.

Buying one of those instead of a normal laptop is still cheaper than buying a console or an extra desktop computer, though. And buying an extra desktop is still cheaper than a PS3, and about the same price as an X-Box 360. (And now you have another computer with a bigger hard drive to store things on.)

Of course, there are plenty of non-price reasons why a console might be better to 18-25 year-olds, but I'm just talking fiscally.

Re:Not only graphics

[AmiMoJo]

What surprises me is that no military has started training it's soldiers to side-step. In fan FPS if you don't side-step you die pretty fast because you are too easy to hit. Since in real life soldiers run forwards, alternately moving and then stopping to cover their comrades, I can only assume that either guns in FPS games are either unrealistically accurate or unrealistically easy to aim. I'm guessing it must be the former because with range compensated sights aiming shouldn't be that hard.

Re:Not only graphics

[frito_x]

to be fair... of the 20+ titles i own on ps3... GT5 is the first one i've seen do that (bayonetta's install was long after the patch that copied everything to the hdd to shorten load times but nowhere near as much as GT5)... funny as it doesn't even look THAT good to justify the ridiculously long install IMO...

i also game on pc and the wii... love 'em all.

cheers!

Re:Not only graphics

[causality]

I've always been of the opinion that it doesn't matter much, PC or Console for FPS type games. If everyone is playing from the same (or similar) input devices, then everyone is on equal footing. There is no "mouse point and click" on the console, so if PC provides more accurate input, so what? That doesn't mean that the console requires more or less skill than the PC version of a game, it just means that the two different versions are slightly different in that regard. The last time I was really into a FPS was when Counter Strike was still fairly new on XBox. I had some friends who were big PC players and they would always tout that if we could play against each other (them on PC, me on XBOX) then they'd roast me. That's probably true, but if we were both on XBOXes I probably would have roasted them. It didn't make much difference to me one way or the other.

The problem then is that if you have a gaming PC you cannot play a game with friends who have an Xbox even when you have the same games. There is no technical reason why a PC running Windows could not use the same network Microsoft provides to its Xbox users. There are game-balance reasons since the PC users are likely to have an advantage when it comes to games like first-person shooters.

It is related only in effect and not in cause, but the situation resembles vendor lock-in. If I have a perfectly good gaming PC and want to play a game against friends who have an Xbox, I can't do that. Instead I'd have to purchase my own Xbox. Then I'd have to purchase a second copy of the game(s) I already have for my PC. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind that scenario but for me it would mean buying something I really don't need.

Since the Xbox 360 has USB ports, Microsoft could add the ability to connect a mouse and keyboard. That would be an interesting solution. They could probably accomplish this with a software update.

Re:Not only graphics

[Kashgarinn]

Try Project Reality - mod for BF2, comes pretty close and is pretty great.

Re:Not only graphics

[Smauler]

I agree wholeheartedly. Many gamers spend too much on their video card, but if you've got an otherwise decent PC, getting a $100-$150 video card will turn it into a perfectly fine gaming machine.

I absolutely disagree. Gamers on a budget can spend a full half of their system price on the graphics card alone, and be right in doing so. The rest of the system does not matter with regards to games usually. My system is cheap - but I just hit almost 1000 on the heaven benchmark, without overclocking anything. I've also fakeraid striped my two main drives, which probably isn't for most people, but increases data transfer times _way_ more than fast, expensive hard drives. You can build a good gaming system for $500 from scratch. One of the big new costs though is upgrading your PSU to support your graphics card - Fortunately I went a little overkill when I bought my previous PC, and got a decent 600W one. That is supposedly borderline with a 460gtx.... not for the maximum draw, but loads of cheap PSUs go wayward when required to spit out their quoted wattage, and voltages go awry, amongst many things. My system is pretty much 100% stable with Vista... 1051 hours current uptime isn't too bad for a home computer. (I turn it off when I'm not using it during the summer... a little heater in the corner of the room is not welcome then). Amusingly the lowest temperature I've recorded for my gtx460 core is 10c, which I know is pretty accurate... always on, stock cooler (my house gets cold when I'm not there during the day - this was back in December in the UK, which was a cold month by most people's standards). Highest temperature recorded is about 70.

I generally spend a little more than that and generally have a PC that will run anything thrown at it. I bought a geforce ti4200 when they were first out. I didn't upgrade for about 6 years from that card - when I did upgrade, it was still outperforming some cards which were retailing at the $100 mark. I did get lucky with that though, I went to an 8800GT with proper crap cooling (it ran at just under 100c under load). It was usable, and performed very well in many circumstances, and now my mum's got it, because I've got this new(ish) gtx460 from them.

The two games I'm most excited about learning about and playing now are Deus Ex, and Dwarven Fortress. I could just ditch my rig and use any old crap machine for these two... but that is part of the magic of PC gaming.

Re:Not only graphics

[MogNuts]

I found your post intriguing. Just to give you a background, I've been playing since the Doom days when they transitioned to +mlook as well. Stopped at Quake 2 but recently picked up the newest shooters. Bought both the 360 and PC copies (because I'm unfortunately hooked and obsessed, but I digress). I've been comparing and analyzing like crazy. Also, I have put in the months with the 360 (and hence controller) on COD:BO. I'd welcome your opinion; here's what I found:

1) Accuracy really is better and so much more natural and easier to achieve with the mouse

2) You can't relax with a controller. By this I mean is that you always have to position yourself perfectly because in the surprise event you can't move the reticle, then ADS, and fire in time. Even if you use the technique of moving in ADS, if the opponent is within distance, you're in a much better chance but if they move quickly you can't follow them or if they're far over you can't move your reticle quick enough

3) It's a valid technique and one might say, hey this is the situation so here is the technique to solve it, but I *hate* when I watch the killcam and see that all these guys do is spam fire (with say a AR or SMG) left and right within an inch and don't even aim, and they demolish you.With KB/M you can actually aim and even use non-automatic weapons and still be competitive. If you've ever played BO, you'd know. Using a non auto like a M16 in non-HC mode is just worthless.

4) It's just easier to look around. You get very frustrated when you can't look freely and easily because you lowered your sensitivity to the lowest setting for accurate aim

5) It's more about positioning because you can't get a surprise shot like I mentioned above

6) If you play a non run-and-gun game (and I do play some, just not constant like some players do with mp5k in close quarters and don't even ADS), you're consistently in the middle of the leaderboard if you're lucky. I have no idea how players have 20-33 kills in BO, or get killstreaks 8+. The best I've ever gotten is 18k/3d. That's ever! But I only average 11k/5-9d. If you compare that to the leaderboards, that's only average/below average. Yet I've had my gameplay analyzed and they tell me I'm pretty good. Go figure. Yet with the m/kb, coupled with the positional tactics learned from the controller, I wreck. Easily average 20k/4d, and on good days in the upper 20s. And that's with a mix of stealth, run-and-gun, and holding positions

7) You really don't have the choice of controller sensitivity. Because if you raise it to medium or high, you're not hitting any targets, even when you ADS it and it slows it down. You just can't position it.

The one downside I noticed is that in BF:BC2 my computer (I'm assuming it's my CPU, not GPU, because I run shooters in lowest details) can't handle the large maps and 32 players. I notice alot of lag when I see players move. I would imagine consoles don't have this problem, or at least everyone is on the same playing field.

Re:Not only graphics

[MogNuts]

I've posted this elsewhere on this thread, but I think you and /.'ers would appreciate it: Bought both the 360 and PC copies (because I'm unfortunately hooked and obsessed, but I digress). I've been comparing and analyzing like crazy. Also, I have put in the months with the 360 (and hence controller) on COD:BO. I'd welcome your opinion; here's what I found:

1) Accuracy really is better and so much more natural and easier to achieve with the mouse

2) You can't relax with a controller. By this I mean is that you always have to position yourself perfectly because in the surprise event you can't move the reticle, then ADS, and fire in time. Even if you use the technique of moving in ADS, if the opponent is within distance, you're in a much better chance but if they move quickly you can't follow them or if they're far over you can't move your reticle quick enough

3) It's a valid technique and one might say, hey this is the situation so here is the technique to solve it, but I *hate* when I watch the killcam and see that all these guys do is spam fire (with say a AR or SMG) left and right within an inch and don't even aim, and they demolish you.With KB/M you can actually aim and even use non-automatic weapons and still be competitive. If you've ever played BO, you'd know. Using a non auto like a M16 in non-HC mode is just worthless.

4) It's just easier to look around. You get very frustrated when you can't look freely and easily because you lowered your sensitivity to the lowest setting for accurate aim

5) It's more about positioning because you can't get a surprise shot like I mentioned above

6) If you play a non run-and-gun game (and I do play some, just not constant like some players do with mp5k in close quarters and don't even ADS), you're consistently in the middle of the leaderboard if you're lucky. I have no idea how players have 20-33 kills in BO, or get killstreaks 8+. The best I've ever gotten is 18k/3d. That's ever! But I only average 11k/5-9d. If you compare that to the leaderboards, that's only average/below average. Yet I've had my gameplay analyzed and they tell me I'm pretty good. Go figure. Yet with the m/kb, coupled with the positional tactics learned from the controller, I wreck. Easily average 20k/4d, and on good days in the upper 20s. And that's with a mix of stealth, run-and-gun, and holding positions

7) You really don't have the choice of controller sensitivity. Because if you raise it to medium or high, you're not hitting any targets, even when you ADS it and it slows it down. You just can't position it.

The one downside I noticed is that in BF:BC2 my computer (I'm assuming it's my CPU, not GPU, because I run shooters in lowest details) can't handle the large maps and 32 players. I notice alot of lag when I see players move. I would imagine consoles don't have this problem, or at least everyone is on the same playing field. Is it really my CPU or is BF:BC2 even bad lag/graphics wise on a more powerful computer (I have a E6400 C2D 2.14ghz with 2GB RAM and a 8800 GTS 512--how is it on a i7 920 with say even a cheap 4870/6850) or 360?

Re:Not only graphics

[toriver]

No, but people generally seem ti buy Steam games on sale.

Personally, I got Fallout 3, tried running it under Windows 7 on my MacBook Pro, noticed it froze solid after a few minutes.

Then I got it for the PS3 and it ran flawlessly. Of course.

Re:Not only graphics

[causality]

Not that I have much time for games these days anyhow.

Yes, it's awful when my gaming cuts into my Slashdot time.

Re:Not only graphics

[residieu]

Netflix/dvds/blurays I can do with my bluray player by the TV. Sure, technically, I can browse the web, probably do email, etc, with a gaming console, but the control scheme just gets more and more painful as you get away from games. Yes, it's my opinion that it's a better gaming experience. But that's the point. I think it's a better experience, so I pay more.

Re:Not only graphics

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

They're caused by the OS which allows such system breaking DRM to hook into the system into the first place.

Still. No. I'm sticking with consoles.

Re:Not only graphics

[Gaian-Orlanthii]

Anyone who tells you that playing a computer game with a radically different control peripheral is like, no big deal, because at the end of the day it's all the same fun experience, is a marketer or a seller. By the time you've figured out how much these people lie for a living, you should still have time to get a refund. With a mouse you can sweep across the screen and stop dead on a point. That's accuracy. No-one can do the same with any single controller that's been made for consoles to date - and there've been many peripherals over the years for PC displaying enough sensitivity and accessibility to name that pixel every time. For the record; I have an N64, Gamecube, Playstation, Xbox, PS2 and PS3. I enjoy my library of games for these machines but for the most part, those games are made for the machines they run on. It's part of the experience of playing them. However lately, I can really tell when a game was developed for a particular console or developed for PC first and then clunkily ported to a console and I really can tell when a game would die miserably online if it allowed PC gamers to play in its network. Come on down, Killzones 1 to 3..

Re:Not only graphics

[jabelli]

I think you're looking for http://www.xpadder.com/

Re:Not only graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

but it got me out of the PC upgrade cycle for a while, and it's been a good experience.

So... you got out of the PC upgrade cycle by limiting your choices to no upgrades?

I see.

-@|

Re:Not only graphics

[monkyyy]

i actaully found it, http://www.download25.com/install/joystickmouse-control-tool.html :/ turns out i need to stop blaming my mouse, its just i suck at osu

Re:Not only graphics

[somersault]

To not needing any upgrades. I have not limited my choices in any way, just my expenditures. I can still go back to a PC if I wish, and I may someday, but right now there is no reason for me to go back to PC gaming. I'd perhaps boot up an old PC to play Counter-Strike Source, but CS3 will be out on consoles eventually anyway.

Re:Not only graphics

[Amyntas]

Perfectly true. The only problem I would see is a potentially outdated box with an AGP slot and nothing more than DDR RAM, but the number of old boxes is falling.
--
Most console gamers I know have never even thought about upgradeability, or about their console becoming outdated.
Most any PC gamer, on the other hand, knows that the second their machine is starting to lack, they can generally upgrade a few parts to bring it back into the pack.
Spend 1200 bucks to put a nice rig together, and slap a new $100 to $200 video card in it every four years. If you ever decide that you want a whole new box, that old machine is still good for something else, unlike a console.

Better yet, one great thing about PCs is the rate prices drop for new parts. If you're not worried about having the most powerful machine *now,* then wait a few months till a few new video cards and CPUs come out. Next thing you know, you're buying those expensive parts you wanted for less than the ones you already have. This makes it fairly easy to keep a decent gaming machine going for a long time.

Re:Not only graphics

[DavidTC]

$1200 is an absurd amount of money to spend for a gaming computer. Here is the normal computer list:

$120 for a nice monitor
$80 on a hard drive.
$150 for motherboard, CPU, memory.
$80 on a case and PSU.
$50 for a DVD.

That is about $480 dollars, that's roughly what I remember prices being. Buy it prepackaged, you can get an OS out of the deal.

To make it into a perfectly functional game computer, you need to spend $100-$150 to add a video card, although $200 is possible if you have some extra cash laying around.

And you need to replace the PSU with something better, so another $100, although if you were smart you just bought the overpowered one to start with, so it was just $120 for the case and PSU.

Starting from scratch, that's about $650, which is what everyone tries to pretend it is. But it's not, which is my point. It's $170, or maybe $220, to upgrade an existing computer. Because the odds are you already have a computer.

I managed to buy a 'right under high end' system for about $400 sans monitor and hard drive and DVD (I was switching from AGP to PCI-E, and just went with a new case and PSU.), adding those in back in would be $570, and it worked with every bell and whistle turned on in computer games for the next four years. (It has stopped, now things are sometimes not defaulting to 'high', so roughly now it's time to upgrade the video card. This year, maybe, or maybe next.)

I don't even know how you spend $1200 on a computer unless you're buying a $700 video card or something. I know such things exist premade, but I've never actually figured out what parts they could be using, and I assume they're something like Monster cables in that they have imaginary tweaks like 'straight bus pathways' and 'solid gold fans'!

Re:Not only graphics

[Amyntas]

Well, Ill list my own build as an example then
x6 CPU - $200
4 sticks of DDR3 RAM, $160
Motherboard - $130
600 Watt PSU - $100
2, 1TB drives - $200
Case - $60
Optical Drive - $30
Temperature monitor and fan controller - $60
Video card - $255
CPU cooler and GPU cooler - $90
Various fans, cables and extra doodads - $50

There we have a rig that is built with the intent of lasting for the next five years, with a total of $1135.
But Wait! There's more! Government Sales Tax, Provincial Sales tax ( 10% ) - $113.5
Shipping - $70

Bringing us to a total of $1318.5, though all the prices were rounded to the nearest five or ten. So you can add or subtract another $40.

Want to add monitors and peripherals? go for it.

It's nice being able to run everything you throw at it.
I personally set my standards at a point in which my machine is not being destroyed by new software or games that come out after I buy it, as well as buying parts that are interchangeable with the -new- products on the market, ensuring Forward compatibility. It's somewhat like buying the most expensive AGP board when everybody else has moved to PCI-e, and then trying to upgrade. It's going to cost more than it would if the extra money was just spent on the PCI-e board. ( though those are quite cheap now )

Re:Not only graphics

[bberens]

I find the required "twitchiness" of the PC versions of FPSs to be annoying at best. I think you hit the nail on the head regarding your comment about it being about "positioning." The different input capabilities add different elements to the gameplay. The primary difference between me and most PC players is that I don't see PC as being inherently "better" I view it as a different gaming experience which weighs on different elements of the game. Subjectively I enjoyed the XBox versions more because that was my primary place to play the game(s). Changing over to the PC was very difficult because I hadn't built the (different) skills required to be successful there and the same strategies were not necessarily effective.

Re:Not only graphics

[MogNuts]

You should give it a shot. Not saying you have to abandon your preferred platform, but just try the next COD or BF on the PC. I was from the old school quake shooters. When I briefly played COD 4 years later, I got my ass handed to me. But the past 3 months when I've gotten back into shooters again, and then learned & honed my positioning skills and strategies on modern shooters (like COD:BO and BF:BC2) then used those same strategies (primarily positioning) learned from the console, I was unstoppable. I'm not attempting to boast either. It was like PC players still perform 50% just mindless shooting. I would say, no kidding, I would win on-foot encounters in BF:BC2 90% of the time using the strategies used in the consoles. Though like I said I play a mix of holding positions and run-and-gun. So at the high end (if I run-and-gunned a lot) I'd have high 20'sk/0-3 deaths and 18-20/0-3d for a mix of run-and-gun/holding.

Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[elucido]

There was a time when Sega, Nintendo and Sony would all design unique hardware. Later on these unique designs became less common, and now thanks to consoles like the Xbox, the common design is an intel chip (or IBM), a standard PC graphics card, etc.

It's going to take a quantum leap in hardware design in my opinion. They can start with moving away from DVDs and going to solid state storage. They can go the fastest possible read, write, access times, for ram and data transfer speed between the different chips and components. They can up the ram to a level of 32 gigs, 64 gigs, etc. Since ram is cheap enough I'd actually go with 64 gigs of ram, 80gig SSD, an ARM based 64 CPU, and flash based cartridges. Yes I'm asking for a return to cartridges because this would provide the best performance.

The graphics card should be the most important part of the console, along with the AI chip. The console should be of modular design, allowing the user to upgrade the graphics card while providing backward compatibility with all the games. The original console should come in three versions, the low cost, medium cost, and high performance version. The high performance version should include state of the art graphics card which can handle real time raytracing at least, and it should be something which can be upgraded or stacked, so that if a customer has the money or buys a game which requires more power, a new graphics chip can be added to the card as easily as plugging in a cartridge. Yes you read it right, the graphics card chip should be designed to fit into the cartridge slot, and then the cartridge plugged directly into that. It also should allow for some type of cloud based graphics or AI setup if it's feasible.

Could it work? I think it's worth a try. They should also focus on streaming the games, and on letting people download time limited games for low prices similar to itunes. You pay for a weeks worth or months worth of play and you can play any game released that month. For certain games of course you'll still have to buy. This will expand the size of the market so causal gamers can just switch to the gaming channel on their TV or go online and click to play.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that consoles should be replaced with PCs?

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[spammacus]

Sony came up with some interesting hardware - and it burned them badly. Between cost problems and developers bitching because it made their ports harder, I don't know if anyone will have the stomach to move away from the PC/X360 model anytime soon.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Idimmu Xul]

There was a time when Sega, Nintendo and Sony would all design unique hardware. Later on these unique designs became less common, and now thanks to consoles like the Xbox, the common design is an intel chip (or IBM), a standard PC graphics card, etc.

er

Wii :
        * CPU: PowerPC-based "Broadway" processor, made with a 90 nm SOI CMOS process, reportedlyâ clocked at 729 MHz[120]
        * GPU: ATI "Hollywood" GPU made with a 90 nm CMOS process,[121] reportedlyâ clocked at 243 MHz[120]
        * "Starlet", part of the Hollywood package: an ARM926EJ-S processor reportedlyâ clocked at 243 MHz.[122]

PS3 :
CPU 3.2 GHz Cell Broadband Engine with 1 PPE & 7 SPEs
550 MHz NVIDIA/SCEI RSX 'Reality Synthesizer'

XBox 360 :
CPU 3.2 GHz PowerPC Tri-Core Xenon
500 MHz ATI Xenos

Not really off the shelf parts you'd find in a Dell!

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[click2005]

Its not that PCs make consoles out of date really. The higher cost of the more powerful consoles required MS & Sony to subsidize the initial cost and to justify it by making them seem a longer term investment. PCs are very easily upgradable.

I'd bet that the next gen MS console will be a MIPS/ARM CPU system with GPU modules that can be upgraded. It'll run WindowsEntertainmentOS (a combination of WindowsMediaPlayer, DirectX and Windows 8/9). It'll be like a PC but locked down so the media/games industry won't moan too much. People are only just buying 1080p now. PCs took a big step backwards when LCDs became dominant. CRT monitors had much higher resolutions.

In the future you wont buy games you'll buy game engines then 'rent' the level/texture/map data which is only available via a steam-like streaming service. It'll kill most piracy and that hated second-hand games market. They might allow games to be sold but only if they get a percentage.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's most impressive is his post actually gets dumber from there. I'm sure there's an enormous market for a $2k game console. With $100 games. And 60GB of RAM that never gets used. And a significantly smaller HD than the current gen.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[somersault]

You're just describing a PC basically. Consoles are good because they're simple. Developers only have to handle one set of specs and can fine tune the end experience just the way they want. Customers (parents, gift givers) know that their games will work as intended on their system.

With a little more RAM and a modern day graphics card the PS3 and Xbox 360 could easily do beautiful high framerate 1080p 3D gaming. The current gen of consoles has lasted for a decent while because they're already "good enough" in the graphics department. I actually find it kind of relieving to know that I can't tweak things, because I spent far too much time overclocking and messing with detail settings when I had a PC. With a console I just deal with graphics as they are (which is actually pretty damn good in some games) and focus on the gameplay. I think the next gen is going to last even longer. This is a good thing for those that don't always want to be paying for upgrades.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

i honestly believe that we may see a diskless generation of hardware... everything will be a direct download from microsoft, sony, and nintentdo. brick and morter stores could sell download codes similar to what gamestop has going...

how i would disagree with you is the different levels of the console. the beauty of console gaming is that everybody is on the same level. i can buy any game for my 360 and know that it is going to 100% work. i don't have to worry about minimum system requirements or if i have to upgrade anything. out of the box it is ready to go. i also love the price point already set... if i wanted to drop $1000 + on something that would have breath taking gfx then sure, i'd shovle my money into the bottomless pit that is a pc gaming machine knowing that in 8-12 months i'll have to upgrade.

to contrast that i have the same xbox 360 that i bought on launch day that plays every game that's come out for it in the last 5 years.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[shoptroll]

Certainly not off the shelf components, but IBM and ATI made a boat load of money off this generation of hardware that's for sure.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Sure, if you only like games where you shoot.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[elucido]

No I'm saying consoles should replace gaming PC's, but should be more arcade. The console should be as easily upgraded as the PC, in fact easier to upgrade.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Hatta]

It's going to take a quantum leap in hardware design

You mean the smallest possible change?

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Svartalf]

Here's a hint: At their heart, they're still a "PC" inside.

Yes, it's a PPC CPU driving the lot of the current gen. Yes, the PS3 has extra stream processors.

But, in the end, the only thing that makes them special/different is a constrained set of device interfaces to code to combined with some strictly applied DRM on the system (I'd say "hardware" DRM, but PS3's don't really have that, now do they?). If you explicitly defined NVidia or AMD as the only GPU vendor, picked an explicit part in that lineup, did the same thing for sound, you'd have a "console" for all intents and purposes expressed with a "PC" instead- especially if you did something like Steam for doing the DRM. If you dedicated part of the shader cores by driver or by coding to support SPU type computations, you'd basically have a PS3 with it.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have that. It's called a "PC" and usually runs a very popular gaming OS called "Windows".

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Exactly. I just finish Dead Space 2 on the XBox. Stunning looking game even blown up on a 65" screen. I need to spend another $1000 so I can get some extra lighting effects?

The only upgradability I can see for a console is things that would not stop any game from running on any console regardless of the upgrades installed. For example, maybe buying more RAM for the system or graphics card. The game could take advantage of the extra RAM if it's there, otherwise just default to the base level.

Eh... even typing it out there makes it sound like a hassle. I think bigger hard drives will be the extent of things as they are now.

That's why I went console gaming. My PC gaming is now booting a Mac Mini into XP and catching up on older stuff I missed with the help of Steam and GOG. Finally played KOTOR late last year (it was... OK), and this month it's Baldur's Gate and maybe Syberia because I'm in the mood for a Myst-like puzzler for some reason.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

With a little more RAM and a modern day graphics card the PS3 and Xbox 360 could easily do beautiful high framerate 1080p 3D gaming

HA!
The PS3 GPU is roughly equivalent to a 7800GTX. It wasn't competitive when the PS3 was released and it sure as hell can't do anything nice looking with 1080p in 3D. I know this from experience, I've written the PS3 graphics back end for AAA titles in the past.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[somersault]

I'm aware of all that, but it doesn't really change any of what I said.. locking down hardware does have an appeal in certain scenarios. The strategy works well in a few markets, the most obvious ones I can think of right now being consoles and Apple products. So clearly it must offer something attractive to the average consumer, and sometimes even to geeks.

In the case of consoles, fixed hardware appeals to the geeks that are bored of "my CPU/GPU combo can get 20 fps on Crysis!" ePenis displays. In the case of Apple products.. I don't quite know what the appeal is now that there are good alternatives! ;)

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[blair1q]

He means something beyond the next point in a continuous path.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[somersault]

That's why I said "with a little more RAM and a modern day graphics card".

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[the linux geek]

Yeah. That'll work great. A chip with a peak of
I/O and memory bandwidth matter more than ever. ARM doesn't have competitive numbers in this area. Combined with their absolutely pathetic core speed (look up the SPECint2000 numbers on a Cortex A9 sometime), they aren't enough for high-performance use, and won't be for a while.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[the linux geek]

Damn you, Slashdot.

"A chip with a peak of below-10GB/s I/O and memory bandwidth will work great with 64GB of RAM and an SSD."

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Urza9814]

Could it work? Certainly. Could it be sold for under a couple grand? Doubtful.

Consoles used to be able to beat computers for gaming value simply because computers weren't really designed for gaming. Now computers are arguably designed _solely_ for gaming. That's the real test. If you look at the marketing for high end desktop components, it's almost all about gaming and multimedia. The only way for consoles to remain a better value is to either have the console as a loss leader or to lower the price through volume - but even with volume, a console would have a hard time doing much better than Dell. Yes, making something really revolutionary would be great too, but no matter what, you'll mostly be running PC hardware. It's already build for gaming; why reinvent the wheel?

There's a reason we don't have things like cartridges on PCs already, and that is because optical media is good enough. And cheap. Nobody is going to pay a premium for games on cartridges, because there's just no benefit to it. Blu-ray can already read data at 288Mbps+. Do you really need more than that right now? You don't need anything near that fast to read video data for full 1080p, so even with massive resolutions you should have plenty of data left for the game itself. If you're reading and writing, then yes, solid state is great. But for read-only data, there's no reason right now to move beyond Blu-ray.

What consoles really need to do is be simple. Realize that people aren't buying a console to have the latest and greatest high-tech gaming system anymore - they're buying one so that they can have a system that's easy to connect, easy to use, and that they can play with their friends. Especially playing with friends - focus on the ability of a console to easily have 4 players (or more) in the same room. Hell, throw two video cards into it so it can output to 2 TVs, and have 8 controller ports. That's something you'll never see a computer do. Basically, make the gaming console a _social_ device.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[toriver]

My AGP-equipped PC has reached its limit graphics-card-wise. And the Pentium 4 was unable to run Age of Conan even after the graphics card had been upgraded to meet those requirements.

But it can do everything else I would want a PC to do. Is PC gaming important enough to keep upgrading? Nope, I have stopped and spent the cash I would have used for a new PC on a console instead. Because: It. Just. Works.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[billcopc]

So.... your response to PC gaming is a $5000 pile of custom hardware that will be a nightmare to design, support and program ?

I'd rather have a $800 PC that plays the same titles, along with all the other stuff a PC can do.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's going to take a quantum leap in hardware design

You mean the smallest possible change?

No, he means some guy with no qualifications is going to travel back in time to possess some engineer, desperately try to play the part while aided by a cantankerous hologram that only animals and children can sense and untangle an insidious plot to the satisfaction of an inexplicable and mystical deity.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[labradore]

Your idea is a gaming geeks dream and a business manager's nightmare. Consoles are popular for consumers, publishers and developers because they offer standardized, large market platforms for the game products. Games cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. You have to amortize that cost over a lot of copies. Third party publishers can afford to put new games on two of three console platforms because it makes sense to add 25% to the production effort to net a 33% increase in potential market. With the PC market, with all the crazy available configurations, it makes no sense to add 50% or more effort and net a 10 to 20% gain in potential customers. That's why the AAA titles strongly prefer consoles over PCs. Once someone figures out how to truely standardize the programming interface for games on the PC, it will be nearly as popular as consoles. The guys at Valve have figured this out, though they haven't really made the huge commitment to making it happen full scale. They are making a ton of money with their limited goals of reducing the cost of distribution and marketing. OnLive is another concern that is headed in exactly the same direction with a much different means of getting there. The potential is there to make billions but the hurdles are still huge.

The truth is that graphics and AI are not the be-all, end-all of gaming experience. World of Warcraft and Starcraft are brilliant examples of games with cartoony, par-level graphics that could be adapted to the current gen. of consoles. Neither game is meant to be played without a keyboard, but they're brilliant, hugely popular games that work because they have excellent gameplay, not over-the-top graphics, AI, physics, etc. Angry Birds is another example of a universally popular game that requires no huge graphics, sound or high-power processing to make it fantastically fun. Fun always trumps glitz. Always.

It's much more fun to pop in a game and play than to pop in a disc, install it, click a million times, agree to terms, input a code, update drivers, turn off antivirus, reboot and wait for long long load times than it is to just relax on the couch and play the stupid game. PCs do have inherent advantages over consoles in the input and processing power departments but the setup, maintenance and support disadvantages make all but the highest-quality, best funded publishers shrink from attempting to build and continue AAA franchises on the PC platform. It makes much more sense to do low-tech, low investment stuff on the PC.

All that said, I vastly prefer the PC because smarter, more complex, more involved games show up there due to the superiority of mouse-and-keyboard input. Next favorite platform is my phone. The only times I have regretted not having a console are when I read about Red Dead Redemption and Heavy Rain. But there's no way I'm buying each console to play two games.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[tnk1]

The thing is... you don't need to shovel your money into a good PC desktop every 8-12 months. I don't understand why anyone thinks you have to. If you can tolerate a console game and its graphics, surely if you have bought a reasonably up to date PC you can keep it as long as you can keep a console. All you have to do is spec out the console and obtain a PC with similar graphics capability.

I usually build a new gaming rig from high-end parts every three years or so, and that is mostly because I like doing other things like rendering and coding with it. I also like the project. I've never had one of my machines be unable to play a modern game in any of those years and I like my games looking good. I don't feel like I am tolerating mediocre graphics with a 2-3 year old machine.

The chatter about buying the best PC parts has always been more about dick waving than it ever was about dramatic improvements in graphics. Consoles just keep people from talking that talk because they have no option but to accept what everyone else has, so there's nothing to talk about.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[PhunkySchtuff]

The original console should come in three versions, the low cost, medium cost, and high performance version.

This has been tried, and failed. For the same reason that having differing performance and/or user upgradable parts doesn't work.

Look at the Xbox 360. How many games take full advantage of a hard drive? Now look at the PS3. How many games take full advantage of a hard drive?

Because the HDD wasn't included in the base SKU for the 360, games makers couldn't rely on it as they'd lose sales to people who didn't have a HDD. Each and every PS3 has a hard drive, so games developers can do things assuming there will be a hard drive there and the experience is better for it.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[jeffmeden]

It's going to take a quantum leap in hardware design

You mean the smallest possible change?

No, more like theorizing that one could time travel within his own lifetime, then leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that the next leap, will be the leap home.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Spatial]

The Xenos is a modified Radeon X1?00. The RSX is also known as the Geforce 7800GS.

It would be ridiculously expensive to actually design whole new architectures for these things.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because there are no RPG, strategy, adventure, racing, simulation or sports games on PC.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wii | CPU: 60 GFLOPS | GPU: 1 GFLOPS | Combined: 61 GFLOPS
Budget gaming PC | CPU: 3 GFLOPS | GPU: 300 GFLOPS | Combined: 303 GFLOPS
Xbox360 | CPU: 115 GFLOPS | GPU: 240 GFLOPS | Combined: 355 GFLOPS
PS3 | CPU: 218 GFLOPS | GPU: 1800 GFLOPS | Combined: 2018 GFLOPS
High end gaming PC | CPU: 107 GFLOPS | GPU: 6000 GFLOPS | Combined: 6107 GFLOPS

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

My computer can output to a TV and 3 monitors and currently has 4 controllers hooked up to it (though I've had as many as 6 connected, not that that is an upper limit). While most computer games don't currently support more than a single player (netplay doesn't count), I can assure you that computers are MORE than capable of being great at 4-player+ games. Sure, the generation of games I play with friends on my computer may be one or more generations older than what's out on console, but that is mostly due to what's available through emulation (and the fact that emulation can be pretty costly). If PC developers chose to develop games that allowed for multiple players, they could easily outdo what any console can (besides the whole simplicity/ease of use that the consoles have going for them).

Unfortunately, PCs are seen as something for a single user, and consoles are seen as the platform for multiple players, so chances of this changing anytime soon is unlikely.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Oh yeah, the diversity of PC games is sooOOOoo remarkable.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[billcopc]

Sure, obviously we'll have internet-only consoles one day, which will be about 18 months after all major markets socialize internet access and make it accessible and affordable to everyone.

In other words, never.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[cyber-vandal]

CRT monitors had much higher resolutions.

But the reinforced desk to hold such a monster would be expensive too.

Toshiba has a 52" at 3840x2160. I can't remember if there were any CRTs at that resolution and a quick Google search doesn't turn anything up.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a couple of 20.1" CRTs that could do 2048x1536. They didnt cost as much as a large car though.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[dave562]

As a geek, the appeal to me is the locked down nature of the hardware and more importantly, the OS. I've spent the last decade and a half being frustrated by hackers in FPS games. On a console, I don't have that problem. I don't have to worry about drivers or any of the nonsense that I've been dealing with since the days of manually adjusting sound card settings in the config.sys file. I plug in the cables, put in the disc and play the game I want to play. That is the attraction of the console. When you do IT for a living, sometimes you want shit that just works and doesn't need to be fucked with. Or in my case, I like the knowledge that the developer (in my case it's Sony with the PS3) is making it a royal PITA for anyone else to screw with the environment. Sure, I feel a little bit bad for people who want to run Linux on the PS3, but fuck it... you can run Linux on anything... go find a 386 if you want to tinker with Linux on some random platform.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[dougmc]

The original Xbox pretty much was a PC. A 733 MHz celeron (?) processor and a Geforce 3 video card.

I imagine we'll see some future consoles with Intel chips again, but PPC is a good choice as well. Don't know much about the PS3 chip.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consoles used to be able to beat computers for gaming value simply because computers weren't really designed for gaming. Now computers are arguably designed _solely_ for gaming.

I'd say that, when 3d video cards started to become widely adopted in the late 90s, PC gaming has been dominated by computers designed for gaming. That's a good while in technology terms.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Entertaining your naive view that the entire library of PC games consist of 30 titles, all from 2010, let's take a look at your cherry-picked link.

Aliens vs. Predator - Survival Horror, Action, FPS
Alpha Protocol - Action RPG
APB: All Points Bulletin - MMORPG
Assassin's Creed II - Stealth, Action-Adventure
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - FPS, Action
BioShock 2 - Survival Horror FPS
Crysis 2 - FPS
Dark Void - Third-Person Shooter, Platformer
Dead Rising 2 - Sandbox Survival Horror, RPG
Deus Ex 3 - FPS, RPG
Diablo III - Action RPG
Fallout: New Vegas - Action RPG
Final Fantasy XIV - MMORPG
Just Cause 2 - Sandbox Action
Mafia II - Sandbox, Action-Adventure
Mass Effect 2 - Action RPG
Max Payne 3 - Third-Person Shooter
Medal of Honor - FPS
Metal Gear Solid: Rising - Stealth, Action
Napoleon: Total War - RTS
Natural Selection 2 - FPS, RTS
Portal 2 - Puzzle, FPS
Rage - FPS, Racing
Singularity - FPS
Splinter Cell: Conviction - Stealth, Action-Adventure
StarCraft II - RTS
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat - FPS
Star Trek Online - MMORPG
Star Wars: The Old Republic - MMORPG
Supreme Commander 2 - RTS
WoW: Cataclysm - MMORPG

That seems like a fairly diverse range of genres to me. Did you even bother to look at that site?

Now taking reality into account

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[somersault]

Indeed. For "everything else" I just use my little netbook. Even for work (mostly developing web apps). Very occasionally I'll switch to a more powerful machine if I need Windows or am going to be compiling a lot. For gaming, I have consoles..

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like a fairly diverse range of genres to me.

Yes, you have a very diverse range of shooters and axe swinging in there.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Timmmm]

No, he means a sudden change. I know you're trying to be funny, but there's actually nothing wrong with using 'quantum leap' in that context - only an over-correcting smartarse would seriously complain.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it work? Certainly. Could it be sold for under a couple grand? Doubtful.

Consoles used to be able to beat computers for gaming value simply because computers weren't really designed for gaming.

WHAT??!

PCs have almost _always_ had more memory, more permanent storage, more gaming input devices (until 2000 or so), faster procs, higher resolution, better network access than consoles.

Consoles have almost always been a better _value_ for gaming because of the consistency, living room placement, low cost, etc.

Nothing has changed. PC gaming had its special time in the sun, that's over now, and by all indications, will not ever come back.
We need a computer in every home, everyone needs a personal computer... ok, ok, ok, check. Now what? Ok.. play games? /facepalm

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Narishma]

I doubt we'll see another console with x86 chips. They're too expensive as Microsoft learned to their detriment last generation.
The PS3's chip is just a PPC core with a bunch of very fast vector processors around it.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dead Space 2 is stunning on the PC mostly for myself because it runs so smoothly on my laptop, everything set to high(Core i7 720QM 1.6GHz Quad core, ATI 5730 1GB Graphics); Most people will disagree (perhaps because I'm a space sci-fi buff), but I find the environments in Dead Space 2 far more interesting then Crysis for example (which does not run anywhere near as fluid on the same machine without some serious graphics tweaks).

Consoles maybe holding PC game graphics back because they are the primary development platform, but if it means I can play the latest AAA titles on my laptop at full settings I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing, besides speaking as a story-based FPS/TPS player only (none of those online competitive games like the CoD or Battlefield series), what has really changed besides the graphics?.

Another thought is that ultra-high/realistic graphics seems to favour realistic war FPS's more then any other game type; I usually play games to escape the planet for a bit, being dragged back into it makes it far too much of a simulation of reality then a game. I know it is unlikely to happen due to the expenses involved, but I'd love to see those high-end engines used for game-types other then FPS's....how about another MYST game or an adventure game using the latest Crytek engine... :D

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

My Computer has dual monitors and 10 USB ports, you insensitive clod!

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[elucido]

The original console should come in three versions, the low cost, medium cost, and high performance version.

This has been tried, and failed. For the same reason that having differing performance and/or user upgradable parts doesn't work.

Look at the Xbox 360. How many games take full advantage of a hard drive? Now look at the PS3. How many games take full advantage of a hard drive?

Because the HDD wasn't included in the base SKU for the 360, games makers couldn't rely on it as they'd lose sales to people who didn't have a HDD. Each and every PS3 has a hard drive, so games developers can do things assuming there will be a hard drive there and the experience is better for it.

I said upgrade the graphics card and ram. The game can automatically take advantage of these upgrades via changes in textures and graphics models. It would be effortless and automated.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

And role-playing. And strategy. And racing. And adventure. And puzzle. And stealth.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have 18 pew-pew-pew games, the rest are a mix of mmos and RTS, one that you can't even decide if it's a shooter or a racer, and your 'puzzle' (singular) game is actually a shooter.

Your idea of diversity is a joke.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[JimboG]

Ziggy? Is that you?

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

you do know that powerpc is ibm, right? right?

however you're correct about the cell - it's one of the reasons that sony is in so much fucking trouble, they're the only games company that actually designs their chips entirely from the ground up, and it's really, really expensive (it does have a payoff in the longer tail, as they don't have to pay royalties, but the up-front cost is hideous).

also, yeah, ati and nvidia gpu's - you can't buy them off the shelf, but that doesn't stop them being pretty common standardized parts, hence the ease with which other operating systems like linux have been ported.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

A quantum leap is a leap that is not gradual; it's quantized.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Off the shelf

PowerPC processor - check (has moved to embedded uses)
PowerPC processor with Cell - check (e.g. IBM sells these as compute blades)
ATI GPU - check
NVidia GPU - check ... and don't tell me that you can't buy the exactly same models. That also happens for OEM PC graphics cards, so its nothing special.
So if we take "off the shelf" to include "for an OEM" (meaning I take >1000 units), your parts are definitely off the shelf.

Additionally, each part was surpassed by the equivalent PC component within less than half a year (meaning consoles weren't even a full hardware generation ahead). There is no chance that the next generation will be any different.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you want is a PC m8.
That is what you described, a PC.

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is obviously not a mainstream item and can't really be used in the argument... but I am drooling and want this as my main monitor!!!!!!

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're describing is maybe the console vendor's wet marketing dream, but console gamers won't go with it. The majority neither wants to upgrade their consoles nor constantly make payments. Most of them are not too stupid to see that if that comes to pass, they better just buy a desktop computer...
 

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware.

[cyber-vandal]

I sit corrected. It's ridiculously hard to find a monitor above 1920x1080 at a sane price.

Until....

[dgatwood]

we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games.

Until the average person is willing to spend six or seven hundred dollars on a media center PC to play games, I'd imagine. It really doesn't matter how good the graphics are if you're viewing it on a 17" computer screen. Most people don't want to be stuck in front of a computer when they play games. They want to be in their living rooms, sharing the experience with others.

Re:Until....

[andrea.sartori]

What about putting the PC in the living room, jack it to the TV if its screen is larger than the PC's, and plug more than one controller? There are infrared peripherals for PCs, there are HDMI/SVGA/S-Video/Whatevs sockets, there's everything.

Re:Until....

[ArhcAngel]

I don't have anyone to share with you insensitive clod! *sob*

Re:Until....

[Shadow Wrought]

They want to be in their living rooms, sharing the experience with others.

Absolutely. I used to scoff at consoles, but their value is in the fun of the games. The obsession with graphics, framrate, and horsepower doesn't necessarily translate to a better experience. It's like arguing that 3D makes movies better. One of the most fun games to play is Super Smash Bros. It's not cutting edge technology, its just . As long as there are people who are only playing games for fun, and just want to put a disk in and play, there will be consoles.

Re:Until....

[h4rr4r]

Fun fact, you can play those games on a PC in the living room. The Wii emulator dolphin can do HD. Which a real wii cannot.

Re:Until....

[Desler]

Because that's a more complicated and costly option?

Re:Until....

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What about putting the PC in the living room, jack it to the TV if its screen is larger than the PC's, and plug more than one controller? There are infrared peripherals for PCs, there are HDMI/SVGA/S-Video/Whatevs sockets, there's everything.

Besides the higher price, bulkier setup, and all the issues related with maintaing a PC, what other benefits do you see here that a console doesn't offer?

Re:Until....

[gknoy]

A wii-emulating dolphin!? Good god, what is this, Johnny Mnemonic?

Re:Until....

[Osgeld]

you can run what you want on it without fear that the sony goons are going to kick in your door and take all your shit

Re:Until....

[chammy]

The ability to play any video codec, browse the web, play mods, and do other tasks impossible on a console?

Re:Until....

[jedidiah]

There is nothing "complicated" about plugging an HDMI cable into a TV and also plugging in a wireless keyboard and some USB controllers.

SVGA? Are you kidding? It's 2011.

Re:Until....

[andrea.sartori]

SVGA? Are you kidding? It's 2011.

My TV is not.

Re:Until....

[Shadow Wrought]

Fun fact, you can play those games on a PC in the living room.

Absolutely true. However, while setting up a media center PC is no big deal to you or most of slashdot, it's intimidating for a lot of people. There are people who enjoy video games, but do not not enjoy technology. (These are not the people of slashdot :-) It is for the non-tech people, who I think outnumber the other, that consoles are meant for. Now, in 20 years when the current generation who was raised with technology is parenting, then it might be different. But for now, consoles aren't going anywhere simply because PCs have better graphics.

Re:Until....

[mangu]

Besides the higher price, bulkier setup, and all the issues related with maintaing a PC, what other benefits do you see here that a console doesn't offer?

Hmm, let's see. How about running all your PC applications? I could never really understand why someone who already has a PC at home needs a console.

I will turn your question around: What benefits does a console offer that a PC doesn't? This is anecdotal, but everyone I know that has a console is someone who has some difficulty in maintaining a computer. If you have a PC you don't need a console.

If you have limited specifications, you can do with a netbook plus a console, and the total cost will be lower than that for a good PC. But if you really need more performance than a netbook can offer you don't need a console at all.

Re:Until....

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The ability to play any video codec, browse the web, play mods, and do other tasks impossible on a console?

Between Netflix, a huge DVD collection, my smart phone, and the headaches involved with running a PC like this, the only real compelling argument here is the ability to play mods. This is just my opinion, of course, but I'm not exactly rushing to Newegg.

Re:Until....

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Hmm, let's see. How about running all your PC applications?

From the couch? Got a practical example?

I will turn your question around: What benefits does a console offer that a PC doesn't?

- Broader variety of games.
- Direct, simple, couch-friendly controls.
- No install, put disc in and play.
- Small form factor.
- Fewer cables/Clutter.
- No endless updates. If you have the console, the game just works.
- On when using, off when not, not some limbo in between. ... etc.

But if you really need more performance than a netbook can offer you don't need a console at all.

The big big big problem I have with this is the thought of having a keyboard and mouse on my lap while sitting on the couch. What you're describing is replacing a dedicated device with a general purpose one. As nerds, we're no strangers to the pros and cons of this. With what you're describing, you've spent more money on the hardware, more time on the configuration, and more time on the maintenance, and the difference in benefits between the two isn't that severe. I can easily see, however, lots of time fiddling or waiting for it to work. Couch gaming really isn't that compatible with that concept.

Re:Until....

[dingen]

If you have a PC you don't need a console.

Except of course unless you actually care for gaming. So you can run Excel on your TV, that's nice. How will you play Gears of War 2 though? Or Gran Turismo? Or Zelda?

Re:Until....

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say Flipper Mnemonic!
Coming soon to theater!

Re:Until....

[Aqualung812]

What benefits does a console offer that a PC doesn't? This is anecdotal, but everyone I know that has a console is someone who has some difficulty in maintaining a computer. If you have a PC you don't need a console.

-Price. I was faced with upgrading CPU/RAM/HD/Video on my gaming desktop when I bought a Xbox 360 for 1/2 the price. Plus, I would have already been on V3 of my gaming rig by now, so now my Xbox has been 1/4 the price.
-Time. I'm a Network Engineer, I fix computer related issues all day. Even if my gaming rig is working fine, I'll be tempted to tweak it, risk breaking it, then spend the night I'd rather spend gaming cleaning it up. Yes, I lost the ability to mod and tweak things, but I learned I enjoy playing games more.
-Common Platform. Enough of my friends were on Xbox that I only had 2-3 people on PC to play with, but 10-15 on Xbox. That's not a trivial consideration.
-Special games. Halo and Rock Band are fun games, and you can't get them on PC
-Split-screen for shooters. I don't know of a single PC FPS that will allow multiple people on the game screen. Could be wrong.

Re:Until....

[Yunzil]

- No endless updates. If you have the console, the game just works.

How cute. :)

Re:Until....

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

- No endless updates. If you have the console, the game just works.

How cute. :)

I should have prefaced that with "I own a Wii". :D

Oh well.

Re:Until....

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If you have a PC you don't need a console.

Except of course unless you actually care for gaming. So you can run Excel on your TV, that's nice. How will you play Gears of War 2 though? Or Gran Turismo? Or Zelda?

I'm not the only one that feels that PC Gaming only has three genres: "Shooting", "Driving", "Micro Managing".

Re:Until....

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't want to be stuck in front of a computer when they play games.

You watch too much Star Trek. Not all computers are required to be large cabinets with blinking lights, . If there is any way in which being in the same room as a "computer" is different than being in the same room as a box-with-chips-that-we-don't-call-a-computer, then you're probably doing computers wrong. A box is a box, and if you hide it behind the TV, it's virtually even less than a box.

Re:Until....

[GunSheep]

Simple and easy...the friends I game with are those "people who has some difficulty in maintaining a computer" They all have Xbox 360's which allow them to do social gaming without the PC gaming upgrade cycle and all it's wonderful tweaking and drivers. On Friday nights we all put in Borderlands, or Gears, or L4D2...and play. Buying a 360 was a bonus for me. I'm off the PC gaming upgrade cycle and there hasn't been a game yet that has motivated me to get back on....

Re:Until....

[anyGould]

What benefits does a console offer that a PC doesn't?

Speaking as someone who owns a Wii, PS2, N64 and NES to go along with multiple PCs and a Mac, here's what I like about consoles:

1. 1. They Just Work - if someone buys me a console game, all they need to know is that I have that console. Any PS2 game will work in any PS2, period. I've had multiple experiences of getting PC games and finding out that (a) my video card isn't the right variety (particularly bad on laptops) or (b) the game is just plain slow (GH3, I'm looking at you).
2. 2. Ease of Use - I put in the game, then I play it. No restarts, installations (although those are getting more common), or antivirus popups. My daughter's been playing on the Wii since she was three, and she's started playing on the PS2 now (at 4).
3. 3. They Keep Working. Go grab an old PC game (say, from early-mid 90s) and fire it up on your PC. There's a reason GOG is popular for resurrecting old games - compatability breaks both ways. My NES is still working, and it still plays NES games.
4. 4. PCs haven't really handled hot-seating (or any sort of simultaneous play) in years. I can play Mario Kart with my daughter.
5. 5. While you can plug your PC into your TV (I used to do that when playing Riven with my wife), it's quickly obvious that PC games aren't designed to be seen at that size/viewing distance.

All that said, I do play some games on my PC. So it boils down to "right tool for right job".

Re:Until....

[tooyoung]

Most people don't really know that you can do this, or are aware that you can, but don't know how. I know it is incredibly easy for technical people, but it is fairly daunting for the non-technical.

More importantly, most people that play on consoles have absolutely no clue how to play a video game with a mouse and keyboard. It strikes them as extremely unnatural. I'm aware that people proficient with a mouse and keyboard can smoke someone using console controls, but the idea of using a mouse and keyboard strikes the majority of the population as daunting and non-intuituve. The point is that it doesn't matter that using a PC is better, because most people wouldn't even know where to start. You can laugh at them and call them stupid, but that doesn't change the market.

Re:Until....

[Desler]

There is nothing "complicated" about plugging an HDMI cable into a TV and also plugging in a wireless keyboard and some USB controllers.

Sure, but that wasn't what the GP said. He was talking about managing IR peripherals, doing all sorts of weird SVGA crap, etc. So yes, that situation is more complicated than what you would do to set up a console which is plug in the HDMI/composite cables and hit the connect button on the wireless controller. No fiddling with anything else. No having to mess with your video drivers to do the TV output, etc.

Re:Until....

[billcopc]

I want to agree with you, actually I used to until about a year ago. Then I bought an X360 to play with my buddies, because well I'm the only guy in the group with balls-out PC hardware. Sure, I could have played Call of Duty by myself on the PC, but that's not exactly the appeal of such a game.

Re:Until....

[Azaril]

Alright, I'll call that. Puzzle games, most of the adventure/platformers consoles have and ofc a variety of indie games.

Re:Until....

[dave562]

I will turn your question around: What benefits does a console offer that a PC doesn't? This is anecdotal, but everyone I know that has a console is someone who has some difficulty in maintaining a computer. If you have a PC you don't need a console.

I'm not getting headshot every time I spawn on a console. I get a hack free experience on the console. The "superior" interface / graphics / etc of the PC are worthless when the game is unplayable because of hackers.

Re:Until....

[CronoCloud]

You are aware the PS3 has a web browser?

Re:Until....

[chammy]

Yep, and its absolutely crap. It only uses the PPC core so its horribly slow and the flash plugin basically locks the browser up.

Re:Until....

[mangu]

Four of your points are that it's easier to maintain a console than a PC. But, I repeat, what if you DO need a PC? What is the advantage of a console if you have a perfectly working PC?

(car analogy) - If you had a Ferrari, would you want a '96 Camaro to go with it?

Re:Until....

[geekoid]

pssssst: a console IS a computer.

Re:Until....

[geekoid]

what? why is plugging the cord into your monitor any more or less difficult the plugging the cord into your TV(which is a fancy monitor)?

Seriously, it's that easy. And 'average non technical' people have been hooking shit up to there TV since Pong.

Re:Until....

[Anonymous Coward]

-You get what you pay for... Xboxen are subsidized by game prices, and the hardware is FUCKING old. Price a computer that can run games at 720p and you'll get really close to Xbox prices.
-I constantly have friends asking me to connect their console to their wireless, and help them plug in their ridiculously priced hard drive. Shipping off a RRoD Xbox may take you less time than plugging in a new power supply, but the downtime is much greater.
-Ah, it's popular so it must be better...
-Starcraft. Emulators.
-Steam's upcoming 'big picture mode' will solve this I believe.

Re:Until....

[Mia'cova]

I'd say a more likely time would be when PCs have parity with the console in terms of the ecosystem. That'll happen when software can be released on the PC without rampant piracy. I don't know what it will take for that to happen. Perhaps graphics cards will be "xbox compatible" and have the added ability of handling an encrypted game. I'm not thrilled about that in many ways. But also, having a full end-to-end and secure ecosystem is a massive money maker (I work in software). I would imagine something like this might show up in the Windows 9 time frame, something that will align with a new console launch. The PC can still do everything it can now, but unless you can lock down an ecosystem, with a few notable exceptions, there's absolutely no reason for developers to release a blockbuster on the PC.

But the upshot is, I see a future where the PC can replace the console in the living room. It would sure reduce my hardware costs if I wasn't maintaining several PCs, a laptop, a 360, a ps3, and a wii. Or at least, there would be a lot less redundancy in my living room. I could probably justify a few extra panels rather than consoles in there :)

Re:Until....

[anyGould]

Well, anyone who has a "perfectly working PC" and doesn't have to invest time to upkeep is one lucky person. I've never met one of them myself.

Re:Until....

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The only problem is that it's addicted to SVN.

(Actually, that was a low blow. I'm sorry for being such a git.)

Re:Until....

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the average person is willing to spend six or seven hundred dollars on a media center PC to play games

AU$498.00 to AU$580.86 for Xbox 360 250GB with Kinect with the Australian and US Dollar at Parity as of this post, perhaps a few cents down at the brick and mortar exchange rate. Average people do spend a shit load on this crap.

Re:Until....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. Most people don't know how to plug a cable into a socket? We have a problem.

And by the way, how in the world would they be forced to play with a keyboard? They sell controllers in shops, did you know that? And don't tell me people don't know. Every single shop has a shelf full with dozens controllers, right near the fucking games.

Re:Until....

[Jappus]

I'm not the only one that feels that PC Gaming only has three genres: "Shooting", "Driving", "Micro Managing".

Huh? I just looked at my gaming collection, and your three genres make up maybe 10% of the games I own.

I mean, you conveniently forgot all Adventure Games (and no, that genre isn't dying out, just ask Telltale Games) and didn't include a lot of RPGs. Then there's a whole slew of Indie Games out there that don't fit your formula. Just looking at the "Humble Bundle" games you immediately find Aquaria, Gish, World of Goo, Osmos and Braid that don't fit into either of the three categories.

And even if you limit yourself to your three categories, isn't "Micro Managing" a bit overly broad? If you take the most inclusive sense of the word, you find management simulations, political simulations, war simulations (both turn-based and real-time strategy), life simulations (and no, not just The Sims), and so on. And in each of those, you find a wide and rich spectrum of very different games. Just compare the Civilization series with StarCraft.

And then there are these mixtures that don't fit into any single category. Games like Dwarf Fortress or The Settlers or Minecraft.

My point is, there are not only a lot more than three genres on the PC, even those three contain wildly diverse games. They might not sell multiple millions of copies and take the lime-light, but then again, how many people have bought such critically acclaimed, off-beat, console-only games like Flower?

Re:Until....

[Corporate Troll]

You'd think, eh? How many people even know that there is a VGA input on their TV? As you and I know, they should not use that, but use a DVI-HDMI cable. For that, however, they need to know that those are pin-compatible and you can get them for cheap. Heck, they probably don't even know what DVI or HDMI is. To them the connectors look different and thus they are incompatible. Try putting yourself in the mindset of someone who does not know the abbreviations.

Given your nick "geekoid", I can understand this is absolutely foreign to you.

Also, keep in mind that for many people a Monitor and a TV are two very different things. This is historical, as the older analog TVs don't interface well at all with PC-Devices at all. I know, I still have a 16:9 CRT TV and I'm not going to replace it unless it breaks. It cost too much money in 2003, just to replace it because it's not current. This outdated knowledge remains in the minds of people and as such they do not think it is possible.

For people who are more at home with tech (or grew up with it, but in my generation 30++, that's not really a given unless you had proto-geek parents), this is easy. My sister uses her TV connected to her computer and PS3 and that's it. It is never used to watch TV. My brother has a big screen TV and a PS3. However BOTH connected the PS3 originally with the cable that came with it, which was not a HDMI cable. Ooops. I bet that 80% of all PS3 consoles are not connected over HDMI! I informed them, bough them HDMI cables and "fixed" the problem for them, even though -of course- you don't really notice the problem in the first place.

As for your Pong Comment. I can't say for Pong, but for a Commodore 64, you needed to program your TV in such a way that a certain channel was set up so you could get the output of the C64. I'm also pretty sure that if you had a C64 back then, you were tech-inclined. It's a self-selected sample. These days, everyone buys consoles. In the days of Pong/C64, not so much.

Re:Until....

[unapersson]

It means I don't have to run Windows on my PC, along with all the baggage that goes with that. One big benefit in my book.

Re:Until....

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has 17" been standard on a pc? I currently use a 24" widescreen monitor which is great for watching movies and playing games on, even with multiple people...

Re:Until....

[slim]

Mmm, but the ideal position for a keyboard, mouse and screen when you're typing or playing a mouse/keyboard controlled game is on a desk or table, with you sitting close to it on an upright chair.

Whereas the ideal position for a screen and controller for a joypad controlled game, is for the large screen to be in a traditional TV-like position, the gamer to be slumped in a comfy soft chair/sofa, with the joypad in his hands.

If you set a PC up for "console-like" gaming, it's pretty much no use for traditional computing. You could have a dedicated home entertainment PC, sure. Or you could have some sort of multiple monitor setup. But that's getting more expensive and complicated than simply having a console.

Re:Until....

[gknoy]

At least that means it won't die of mercury poisoning.

Re:Until....

[dgatwood]

Pedantically, yes, but by "computer", most of us mean "general purpose computer", which a console is not.

By that same standard, my cell phone, my Blu-Ray player, and my wristwatch are computers.

Re:Until....

[dgatwood]

Either way, it's a far cry from the 50-odd or 60-odd inch I have in my living room.

Re:Until....

[Anonymous Coward]

It really doesn't matter how good the graphics are if you're viewing it on a 17" computer screen

that's why so many people have hd tvs. and then use the little plug-type things on the back of video cards and tvs to connect the two. i haven't even seen a 17" primary screen in years. most of my friends have 1 or 2 24"-to-30" screens and a 32" to 48" tv.

also.... pcs aren't exactly massive heavy infrastructure concreted to one spot, they can be moved... or the previously mentioned little plug-type things can be connected using a longer connectory-type thing, or even utilising some form of connectory-type-thing-less technology.

Welcome to the cycle

[ArhcAngel]

I quit playing console games last year and switched to PC games. I credit the release of StarCraft II. I had to get a video card for my PC for the first time in years. I have all three current gen consoles and they are now mostly for streaming video.

Re:Welcome to the cycle

[Illogical Spock]

I quit playing console games when I sold my Atari and bought an Apple 2 - and from there I got an MSX (not so popular in the US) and then my first PC. And never looked back.

PCs have better controls, are upgradeable, cheaper (when you consider their life cycle and usefulness), can do a multitude of things and have more complex (in a good way) games. The majority of the console games are very, very shallow compared to the PC games.

The only videogame I got after my first PC was a Wii for my wife. I can't deny that when we have friends over it is some fun with the sports games, but apart of that the only thing I've really played were the Mario games (Kart and New Super Mario). I've tried several shooters (my favorite genre) and was very, very disappointed.

Re:Welcome to the cycle

[jellomizer]

It really is a cycle go back generations now.
Lets go with the Pong System (A Console system that played one game) As well a few other Custom game consoles
Then the Apple and Atari (I am going to classify the Atari as a computer is it was marketed as such) where the Personal computer was used to play games the advantage was multiple games.
Then the Nintendo console (Cheaper then a full computer and played multiple games)
386 and VGA PCs (256 colors, fast computer... Wolfinstien 3d, Doom, then added CDROM etc...)
Play Station (CD games but cheaper then a computer and worked on a TV (with lower resolution that allowed less processing and more effects on less hardware)
Networked PC w. 3d Cards, new expandable graphics and you can play online with your friends
XBox 360/PS3/Wii Networked with new controls
Now we are going back to PC

PCs offer expandability and usually are the first to get the next greatest thing, however they start pricey then it drops. So during the Pricey periods that is when the Consoles are in charge. After a while the Consoles get out of date and the new cool tech is now at a good price point so the PCs come back. Then some new stuff comes and it is too expensive to upgrade yet so the console gets back with it middle ground tech which is better then your PC at a low price point and you go back.

Re:Welcome to the cycle

[Dogtanian]

(I am going to classify the Atari as a computer is it was marketed as such)

Which one? The Atari VCS / 2600 console or the somewhat more advanced Atari 400 and 800 "Home Computer" systems?

Was the VCS ever marketed as a "computer"? Yeah, of course it's a computer in the general sense of the word, but I can't see anyone buying it to use as a "computer" in the more specific sense most people mean.

Re:Welcome to the cycle

[Jeremi]

Was the VCS ever marketed as a "computer"?

Dunno about the marketing, but have a look at this. Crazy, no?

Re:Welcome to the cycle

[Dogtanian]

Oh, I've heard about that, yeah.

I was going to ask if that thing included any onboard memory. Even the unexpanded (1KB RAM) ZX80 and ZX81s required serious memory-saving to do anything of note... the VCS has 128 *bytes* of RAM and I would have assumed that that would barely have covered even the most cut-down overheads.

But going by this video it appears that the user gets something like 64 characters/tokens. In short, you're not going to be able to do anything more than tweak a couple of variables via that weirdass keypad-driven interface before you run out of memory. The whole thing looks terrible if not ludicrous.

Fundamental problem is that the VCS included enough memory to be able to *run* programs, but certainly not to develop them!- which pretty much confirms that it wasn't remotely plausible as a general-purpose computer.

The question is, did Atari ever attempt to sell *the console itself* as a "proper" computer, or intend this cartridge to bolster that claim? Or was it always meant as just a bit of "fun"(??!)

Re:Welcome to the cycle

[indiechild]

Which shooters did you try? And have you tried them on the PS3 or XBox 360? There's some really good console shooters out there now. I used to be a PC-only gamer but nowadays I devote equal time to consoles and Mac. It's true that playing FPSs with a controller is horrid compared to mouse + keyboard, but on an even playing field it's quite manageable and even enjoyable. I'm addicted to the Call of Duty/Modern Warfare series.

I definitely wouldn't play FPSs on Wii though, they tend to be quite crippled due to the low-spec hardware.

Re:Welcome to the cycle

[Illogical Spock]

I've tried CoD, Medal of Honor, 007... And tried some other genres too, like sword games and stuff like that. Yeah, the hardware don't help, but the real problem is the way the games seems to be simplified in the Wii - less dense, easier. This, and the fact that some games were programmed as if the controller itself would make the game great - despite it being very, very shallow. The sword ones are good examples, because you pratically keeps shaking the control all the time - and that's it.

But the controller is my major issue in other systems (like PS3 and X-Box). I've never adapted to these control pads. :-) I remember playing with that very raw, clunky, black cube with a stick in the Atari 2600 and it was great despite my hand aching like hell after some hours. I believe I adapt better to a joystick than to a pad.

I'm not arguing that the XBox and PS3 have good games and are good systems - how could I when they are a huge success? But call me old-fashioned (I just turned 40, can you imagine that? :-) ), I'm still a PC guy.

Said many times

[Anrego]

But I still prefer console. A PS3 at that. Sony may be evil.. and they may gradually strip out features people have already paid for and do all manner of slimey underhanded stuff.. but as long as I can play every day shooter and plants vs zombies and the occasional "real" game.. I'm happy.

Console is nice because it's consistent. My PS3 is probably for the most part identical to yours. I don't have to worry about how much ram I have or my video card to know I'm getting the full, intended experience.

The bleeding edge "every last FPS" stuff may end up moving to PC, but I think consoles will still have a place for people like me who want to just buy something and start playing.

Re:Said many times

[Jorl17]

"And they may gradually strip out features people have already paid for and do all manner of slimey underhanded stuff"

That's just like what Valve and Microsoft do. Some people are already used to that lowlife.

Re:Said many times

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought my PC around the release of the PS3/360. The only major upgrade I did was adding a 2GB RAM stick (~$20) and replacing a burned out LAN card (~$8).
I can still run every game released today with decent quality, and most, at max settings.

The bleeding edge "every last FPS" stuff may end up moving to PC, but I think consoles will still have a place for people like me who want to just buy something and start playing.

Is that before or after the 15 minute HDD installation? I really hate when console fanboys talk of some imaginary complexity of the PC when the only thing you have to do on a modern Windows 7 PC is put the CD in the drive, accept the license and hit "install now/easy install/express install" or whatever option they have for people who don't want to deal with installation directories. There are no more extra installations, most of the things you need are installed over Windows Update without any interaction and without forcing you to look at a pretty progress screen while you can't do absolutely nothing. The worst thing you have to do is download a video driver every few months, and Microsoft supplies reasonably up-to-date drivers with the Windows Update service.

Re:Said many times

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as I can play every day shooter and plants vs zombies...

And your examples are two games that are playable on the PC?

Re:Said many times

[BassMan449]

That's just like what Valve and Microsoft do. Some people are already used to that lowlife.

Please show me an instance of Valve doing this.

Re:Said many times

[Anrego]

Guess it depends on situation. Where I use Linux on all my boxes, I would either have to buy a second dedicated box, do the wine thing, or dual boot windows.

The dual boot option is a huge hassle because I'm a very casual gamer... I'll play something for maybe half an hour to take a break from whatever I'm doing. Having to stop everything and reboot is impractical for this purpose.

The wine option is an even bigger hassle for fairly obvious reasons.

So that leaves a seperate dedicated PC. I have to pick out parts and so forth (or even if I go to walmart and buy one.. I still have to think about it). I haven't used windows in a long time, but I'm guessing there is still some distance between "installed" and "in a usable state". My last windows experience was about a day of removing various included junk, and a day worth of windows live updates. Not to mention a PC is gonna cost more! Console hardware is still a lot of (specialized) hardware for pretty damn cheap.

This compared to my PS3.. which I essentially bought on an impulse one day after having lunch with someone. We were talking about a game (I think it was fallout) and I was kind of "yeah I haven't played a game in quite a long time... I should get a console or something" .. went and bought a PS3 and a copy of the game and was playing that afternoon.

Re:Said many times

[Anonymous Coward]

What did Valve do other than the Left 4 Dead "there will be a lot more content after launch but oops we have Left 4 Dead 2 available first thing"?

Re:Said many times

[shadowfaxcrx]

On that note, one advantage of PC is that its non-standard nature forces game designers to think about control customization. I'll give you an example:

My SO really wanted a PS3 for Christmas, so I got her one. In exchange, she got me Gran Turismo 5, which I was actually excited about since I'd been wanting to play that game since version 1. I was even more excited when I found out that my Logitech racing wheel that I use for PC racing games will work on the PS3.

I'm pretty disappointed in the game, and not only because I can't seem to convince it that a Veyron hitting a wall head on at 250mph isn't going to just bounce off and keep going down the track, but also because of the utter lack of controller configurability. Sure, I know, my Momo wheel isn't the "official" GT wheel, but so what? It's not the "official" FIA GT2 wheel either, but I can still tell my PC version of GT2 what I want all the buttons to do, and I can adjust control sensitivity. I can't do that with Gran Turismo.

The sensitivity issue is the worst part, because all racing wheels use floating pots for the pedals, and those pots inherently have tiny inaccuracies at the extremes of travel. This translates into the brakes always being slightly applied. On the PC that's an easy one to fix - just calibrate and the problem goes away. At worst you set the dead zone to compensate. On the PS3, that's not an option. You can't calibrate it. You can't set sensitivity. You can't set the dead zone. So I wound up having to rig up an elastic cord to pull up on the brake pedal just to keep from having to drive around while hooking my toe under the brake pedal to keep it from being constantly on.

This isn't a problem that only I am having - the GT forums are full of people bitching about it.
Since I got the game, they've pushed 2 updates. Those updates did minor little things that I don't even notice, but didn't add the calibration functionality that's been standard on every PC racer for over 15 years.

Now, that's GT's fault, of course, but Sony could have also implemented a hardware calibration utility, and didn't. I've been able to calibrate joysticks at the OS level since Windows 3.1.

That they take such a "you can't make any changes at all ever" attitude toward controllers really eliminates the "it just works" advantage that consoles have an increasingly unjustified reputation for.

Re:Said many times

[Jorl17]

This whole lengthy thread focuses on some examples. Particularly, the Windows 98 pseudo-scandal (or the CSS update if you will, since they both changed the entire content of a game that was paid for without ways of going back -- in one situation the content changed to "unplayable"!).

Re:Said many times

[Jorl17]

Yes I forgot to add the thread, silly me: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1999586&cid=35255566

Re:Said many times

[Anrego]

My point wasn't that those two games are exclusive to console, it was that as long as console is cable of playing them (and other similar games.. nothing special about those two.. they were just the two games I played last) the console meets my needs.

The reason I prefer console to PC is mainly that I use Linux. Doing PC gaming would either require dual boot (which is a hassle for quick 30 minute breaks) or wine (even more hassle) or a dedicated windows PC (effort, costs more). This was really the point of my post. Console is good for people who just want to play the occasional game.

Re:Said many times

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Valve are in any way comparable to Sony with the amount of shit that they pull.

Please pass whatever you are smoking, it must be good.

Re:Said many times

[Jorl17]

That's not what I said. I said that I'm used to gradually losing features for software that I paid. Valve does it -- W98 scandal, meaningless updates that I can't undo, CSS scandal etc etc etc.

Re:Said many times

[vakuona]

Gran Turismo is a simulator. How much controller configuration do you do on a car for example?

Re:Said many times

[shadowfaxcrx]

Well, if my car's throttle is sticking, I can go in and fix what's broken so that it doesn't stick any more. Gran Turismo should simulate that by letting me adjust controller settings.

Gran Turismo, btw, is the ONLY simulator I've ever used (and that's the bulk of my gaming) that doesn't allow controller config.

Re:Said many times

[indiechild]

Your definition of low-life may vary. People in Western countries like Australia used to buy legit games (boxed DVD) for much cheaper from countries like Thailand, but then Valve, without warning, blocked the CD keys so that the games couldn't be played outside of the country of purchase.

I personally got burned by this when I bought The Orange Box. I don't think Valve is evil or anything, but I certainly didn't appreciate it.

Ah, the joys of "Free Trade".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Console vs PC "graphics life cycle"

[Superken7]

Nothing unexpected.

Current console generations like the XBOX 360 have been along for like 5 years!

It's always the same. When the next generation of consoles are released they will be much more powerful than any PC, after a while then they will be more or less equal, and in the end of each life cycle PC games will be substantially better (graphics wise, of course) than console games (which would represent today's state).

"The article includes three videos that give a fantastic insight into where PC graphics are headed"
Yeah right, and where are consoles headed? In the same direction.

Re:Console vs PC "graphics life cycle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing unexpected.

Current console generations like the XBOX 360 have been along for like 5 years!

It's always the same. When the next generation of consoles are released they will be much more powerful than any PC, after a while then they will be more or less equal, and in the end of each life cycle PC games will be substantially better (graphics wise, of course) than console games (which would represent today's state).

"The article includes three videos that give a fantastic insight into where PC graphics are headed"
Yeah right, and where are consoles headed? In the same direction.

Consoles are never "more powerful than any PC." Last generation, for instance, the consoles were 6 months behind PC hardware by the time they were released. Cross-platform near-launch titles were vastly superior on the PC.

Re:Console vs PC "graphics life cycle"

[Anonymous Coward]

There was NEVER a console that was more powerful than a contemporary high-end PC.

Re:Console vs PC "graphics life cycle"

[Turnpike Lad]

The main difference this time around is that this console generation is going to last a lot longer than previous generations. Five years in to the 8-bit, 16-bit, PS1/N64 and PS2/Xbox generations, we were gearing up for the new generation of consoles to be released. In contrast it's been five years now since the 360/PS3/Wii came out, and it's looking like it's going to be another five or so before we see their successors. PC hardware has surpassed console hardware and the gap will only grow in the coming years, to an unprecedented degree.

But I still don't think we'll see too much of a change in buying habits. The thing is that even though the current generation of consoles is behind in technology, they still can deliver some really snazzy visuals on high-def TVs. So while PCs might get ever more powerful, if amazing-looking games like Uncharted 2 keep coming out on consoles I don't think we'll see large-scale migration back to the PC. In a few years PCs might be multiple times as powerful as a console, but I think the graphics provided by current consoles will continue to be good enough for the average consumer. And console games of course will continue to become slightly better-looking as developers learn to take the best advantage of the hardware - compare early PS2 games like Dark Cloud to something like Shadow of the Colossus for a good example of how graphics can get much better over time even on the same hardware.

Re:Console vs PC "graphics life cycle"

[nabsltd]

When the next generation of consoles are released they will be much more powerful than any PC

Probably not without being as expensive as a higher end PC, as benchmarks show that to get the 30fps minimum consoles shoot for at 1920x1080, you will likely need a quad-core processor and the equivalent of a $200 graphics card (at least for modern titles).

Throw in the fact that you will need better thermal solutions (since the console will be smaller, and needs to be quieter), and that will also drive up the price (at least in terms of R&D...the solution may not be expensive to build, but it will almost certainly be expensive to design). Now, if you drop down in graphic quality (720p, no AA, etc.), then the console certainly will require less hardware, but it also won't even be close to being "much more powerful than any PC".

The best thing a console could do is start being more like a real PC, by having optional high-end video, slots to install the networking of choice (e.g., wired or wireless), etc. This would keep the cost of the "base" unit reasonable, while still allowing some purchasers to have "the best", but also know it is compatible. Also, since consumers are getting smarter, the prices for optional items will have to drop (no more $200 for a 200GB hard drive, when you can get 3TB for that same price), but the console manufacturers will likely sell a lot more upgrades that way.

Re:Console vs PC "graphics life cycle"

[Aqualung812]

You're not factoring in the bulk levels that console makers are buying at, nor their trend to sell the consoles at a loss when they first release them, knowing the loss will slow over time and later become profit, while making licensing money the whole time.

Also, I don't see having performance-related differences between one brand of console. The console makers want to keep things as simple as possiable, and getting into specs is exactly what they want to avoid. Heck, Microsoft even changed from a green to purple packaging for their Kinect games, just to make it that much easier to tell it won't work with just an Xbox.

If they can't even trust the end user to notice the "Requires Kinect" sticker, do you really think they'll expect them to know what a GPU is or what one they have?

Re:Console vs PC "graphics life cycle"

[Anonymous Coward]

However gameplay / environment will eventually take a kick; because of processor limitations (The wii has been prone to these issues for years already). Dragon Age 2 has multiple painful occasions where it demonstrates this limitation as well. Many areas in the game are shockingly void of life, despite being described as 'bustling with activity'. If games want to keep bringing more 'realistic' and detailed gameplay - stronger processors are required. And consoles are struggling to maintain gameplay and sensible immersion at the same time.

Re:Console vs PC "graphics life cycle"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always the same. When the next generation of consoles are released they will be almost as powerful than any PC, after a while they will be much less, and in the end of each life cycle PC games will be substantially better (in every sense, of course) than console games (which would represent today's state).

fixed that for you.

The Frontier

[softWare3ngineer]

PC has aways been on the frontier. they were the first a allow online play, the first to allow chating while playing, and first to allow comparing achievements with others online.

Re:The Frontier

[PhunkySchtuff]

PC has aways been on the frontier. they were the first a allow online play, the first to allow chating while playing, and first to allow comparing achievements with others online.

I skimmed your post and initially read it as "...the first to allow cheating while playing..."

Re:The Frontier

[dave562]

And they were the ONLY ones to allow aimbot and wallhack code to run neatly alongside the game code. Since the user controls the PC, they also circumvent any anti-hack measures that are implemented. Wheeeee, PC gaming rocks! /sarcasm

PCs are good but aren't everything

[Kazzerscout]

I don't think PCs have the accesibility that consoles do however. Updated graphics are great, but so long as console ports continue to have the same experience with the only downside being it doesn't look as great, it will remain the dominant platform (in my world they are). This is because the money and investment needed to play games with these improved graphics requires specialist hardware, graphics cards and what not that the younger generation simply cannot afford.

Re:PCs are good but aren't everything

[chemicaldave]

Not to mention consoles are more portable. I wouldn't want to lug my 40lb PC to the TV everytime I wanted to play a game on the big screen in conosle fashion. Hell, I don't even know of any PC games that have multiplayer where each person gets their own controller.

Re:PCs are good but aren't everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I don't even know of any PC games that have multiplayer where each person gets their own controller.

A separate controller is a bit hit or miss on a PC, shareing the keyboard is more likly. Hot seat or co-op style was left out for the last decade or so by game programmers as people should "connect via the internet". Just like the more recently cutting of the lan game style of multiplayer.

Just not something that gets programmed for as "limited benift" (or "we can sell more copies this way").

Re:PCs are good but aren't everything

[nabsltd]

I wouldn't want to lug my 40lb PC to the TV everytime I wanted to play a game on the big screen in conosle fashion.

You'd likely have a PC permanently attached to the TV. It's much easier to do this today with HDMI outputs, and you can build a small, attractive HTPC for less than $500.

Hell, I don't even know of any PC games that have multiplayer where each person gets their own controller.

Neither do most modern console games. Most require each player to have their own console.

Consoles as Target Platforms

[Sonny Yatsen]

FTS:
"Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games.""

PCs have, for the most part, outclassed consoles in terms of graphics for years. For most games which are available on the consoles and PC, the PC version will almost always feature higher resolutions and better textures and other graphical bells and whistles (even in cases of console ports). However, pure graphical power isn't why people buy consoles and not PCs. People buy consoles because it's cheaper (at least, it's cheaper than buying a state of the art video card every two years), it's accessible, and its better integrated with their home theatres. I think consoles will stay the target platform for blockbuster games for a long time.

Re:Consoles as Target Platforms

[jandrese]

I've not found that to be the case. For most multiplatform titles, the PC version will have whichever console version had the nicer textures, but will otherwise be a port, frequently a really shoddy port at that (Press R2 to not die!). Graphics won't look much better on the PC than they did on the console because it's basically the same textures, same display code, etc... PC gamers have the option to apply tweaks outside of a game (turning on 16xCSAA for instance), but they tend to be marginal differences at best. Textures will still look like crap close up (because on the TV you're sitting further away and don't notice) and you'll be stuck in loading screens a lot.

Re:Consoles as Target Platforms

[MemoryDragon]

Actually the cheaper argument is moot if you count in the price difference in pc and console games. And face it the ultimately needed upgrade cycle nowadays is as fast as the console upgrade cycle, and giving the shitty console processors usually the graphics card is the only part updated on the pc for about 10 years now.
(Which means a pc bought 3-4 years ago will last until the next gen consoles hit the shelves and even then it is very likely that you only have to change the graphics card. Add to that about 20 USD dollars prices difference and a faster bargain bin period than on the consoles, than the price argument is non existent. Consoles simply follow the razor model by ripping you off afterwards big time.

Re:Consoles as Target Platforms

[Uberbah]

it's a stupid myth that you have to shell out for a state of the art video card every two years

Fixed that for you. PC gamers no more need to shell out for "state of the art" video cards than console gamers need to shell out for the latest high end flatscreen TV.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

A current PC can beat a 4+ year old PS3 and a 5+ year old 360?

How about some real metrics? Throughput per watt? Titles sold on each? Failure rates? Life cycles of PC rigs compared to consoles? Money spent over X years (console games are dearer, PCs video cards are as dear or dearer than consoles).

all about the $$$$

[Anonymous Coward]

the reason companies over the last few years have avoided specifically for the pc crowd is piracy. i can't remember where i saw it but i think it was someone working on crysis said that close to 90% of the people playing on their servers that they pay to run were running pirated copies of the game. those numbers just don't exist in the console market. so yeah the gfx of the consoles is beginning to show it's age but sadly outside of steam and battle.net pc gaming just isn't super profitable for developers.

Graphics

[Andy Smith]

The thing is, it's not all about graphics. I can spend £40 on a game for my PS3 that's, what, 3 years old? And it will be very, very close to what the PC version is like. Or I can spend £10 less on the PC version, but I'd need to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading my PC every year. And then I'd have to put up with all the DRM junk. And PC versions tend to be buggier. So no, right now, I don't really "get" the appeal of PC gaming. The cost vs reward doesn't add up.

Re:Graphics

[0123456]

I can spend £40 on a game for my PS3 that's, what, 3 years old? And it will be very, very close to what the PC version is like

Because the PC version is a port of the PS3 version which was pre-crippled to run on the PS3.

And the PC version will probably cost $5, not 40 pounds. I can't imagine paying that much money for a three year old game.

Re:Graphics

[Bake]

I think he was referring to his PS3 being 3 years old, not the game.

Re:Graphics

[L4t3r4lu5]

The thing is, it's not all about graphics.

Good, because I've been running better than 1080p since before it was called 1080p (got my 24" 1920x1200 monitor in 2007).

I can spend ã40 on a game for my PS3 that's, what, 3 years old? And it will be very, very close to what the PC version is like.

Only it will require the use of a controller as opposed to a kayboard and mouse. This may be a boon, I'm not passing judgement, but I prefer mouse + keyboard.

Or I can spend ã10 less on the PC version, but I'd need to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading my PC every year.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG. My PC is from 2006/7 (4 / 5 years old compared to your 3 year old PS3). Kentsfield Core 2 Quad Q6600, nForce 650SLI motherboard, GeForce 8800GTX graphics. I have upgraded nothing since I bought that, and I spent around £1000 at the time on it. Now you could argue that it's the equivalent of £250 per year since 2007 in upgrades, but you're missing a vital piece of information: I'm not upgrading my PC. It's 2011, I can still play Assassin's Creed II, Prototype, WoW, Mass Effect 2, any number of graphically intensive games titles at 1920 x 1200 at more than playable framerates. I have yet to encounter a game which I cannot play at detail levels which far exceed those of the latest generation of consoles.

And then I'd have to put up with all the DRM junk.

Uhhh... You must be new here. PS3 is DRM'd up the wazzoo! Blu-Ray? HDCP? My PC doesn't have those, and I get 1920x1200, thanks.

So no, right now, I don't really "get" the appeal of PC gaming. The cost vs reward doesn't add up.

Cool, that's fine! Just remember, though, it's opinion, and not one based entirely upon fact.

Edit: Fix UNICODE support. For fuck's sake, it's only been 14 years.

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ < Fix that.

Re:Graphics

[MemoryDragon]

Guess what there hasnt been any need to upgrade the pc since the last console generation has hit the shelves, the consoles brought the necessary pc upgrade cycle to a grinding halt. I bought an el cheapo 150 USD graphics card 2 years ago and still can play every game coming out for the pc in max or medium details.

Re:Graphics

[StikyPad]

I'd need to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading my PC every year.

That hasn't really held true since the early 00s. This is partly because many PC titles are ports of console games now and so don't push the boundaries as hard, but also because the pixel wars tapered off where you no longer have monitors released with ever-increasing DPI. Both of these facts make me sad, but the fact remains that a 4-gen old card can competently play most modern PC games. Even if you may have to turn down some of the eye candy ever so slightly, you'll still get an equal or better experience than on a console, and as a bonus, you're not limited to a controller for your input. Frankly, there should be far more bonuses to using a PC (locally hosted servers, better models and textures, higher resolution), but the aforementioned facts get in the way of this in most cases. The quality of games available on the PC has been dragged down to the level of consoles for the most part, making the choice of platform almost moot. This article speculates that that's about to change, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd need to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading my PC every year.

Not true.

I use my PC primarily for gaming. I bought it in the middle of 2007. It's coming up on 4 years old now, and I have replaced the graphics card ($150) and added two more gigs of RAM ($80). I probably would have saved money on both purchases if I had not bought them retail.

The CPU at the time was one of the faster dual core ones. Now it's lagging behind a little bit, but it still runs any recently released game just fine, because the CPU matters far less for gaming than does the graphics hardware and RAM.

I'm still using the 320 gig hard drive that came with it. I just uninstall crap when I'm done with it and I haven't felt a crunch.

So keeping my PC current has cost me on average about $40 per year.

My initial investment was $850 (I got the base machine on sale for $700 and replaced the crap graphics card that came in it immediately for $150. And that was retail.

Aside from it being a very good gaming rig, it's also a great computer, useful for all those things a console just can't do.

Re:Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd need to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading my PC every year ... PC versions tend to be buggier.

You have really no idea what you are talking about or you are a blatant console fanboi.

As others have said, if you spend hundreds of pounds per year to upgrade your PC, you're a fool. As for the buggier part ... yea right. Is that why console players always rant on dev forums of games how they are behind in patches because MS, Sony, etc. hasn't greenlighted the latest patch yet? Or how the devs didn't even bother to port the patch to consoles because they know publishers won't greenlight it?

You're talking nonsense.

Re:Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to spend hundreds every year though - that's just a misconception that gets pushed to help sell consoles.

The typical upgrade cycle for a PC is ~£200 every three of four years, Most of the parts have, for all intents and purposes, indefinite lifetimes, and the only parts that do need upgrades (CPU and GPU) don't need to be upgraded very often to continue playing the latest games.

A Mid range GPU costs £100-150, and will typically play everything on the market at full HD resolution with no problems. These can be upgraded every three years or so - and with this generation that gap got even wider. Almost all games on the market will still run happily on an old 8800GT - a card that was current 6 years ago. Equivalent cards cost about £40 now.

CPU's occasionally need upgrades, but these aren't expensive either. Most games are designed to run on off-the-shelf retail computers and laptops, and as a result they don't push the cpu's that hard. Cranking up the detail doesn't push the CPU any harder either, as the graphical workload is almost entirely on the GPU nowadays.

Checking Aria(.co.uk) at the moment a triple core proc is about £60, and a 3 Ghz quads about £100, and will run *everything*. Crysis 2 needs a 2Ghz dual, for example. The AMD stuff was all socket compatible so there's been no need to change the motherboard this generation either.

The only reason you'd spend more on PC gaming in a generation is if you're doing a new, from scratch build or someone's tricked you into buying more expensive hardware than you actually need. Or if you're running in the E-Peen Olympics. :)

Re:Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

How on earth would you manage to spend hundreds of pounds per year upgrading your computer? Take any computer released in the last four years, add a decent graphic card, DONE. It isn't the nineties anymore.

Re:Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

PC versions tend to be buggier. .

I call BS on that. Bugs in most PC games I play are from poor porting from console.

Not to mention PC games are actually expected to have patches in the first few weeks, whereas, consoles forget about past games as soon as they hit the shelves.

Re:Graphics

[Issarlk]

No. There is no reason to upgrade you PC until the next gen consoles are sold. You upgrade it with cheap gamer level hardware from laste year now and you'll be set for several years.

Sony is a VCR company.

[elucido]

Sony is not and was never a game company. Microsoft knows more about doing this than Sony.
Sony is good at designing hardware but horrible at designing software and not particularly good at developing gaming hardware.

Microsoft has developed keyboards, mice, and games in the past. Microsoft understands how PCs work and could probably do it. Nintendo could probably do it also. Sony will have learned their lesson, the main lesson was they only offered an expensive version of PS3. The trick is to offer different versions, much like how you can get the value edition of a video card.

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[shadowfaxcrx]

To me the only advantage of a console is that I can go out and buy a game for it and it is guaranteed to work the same on my console as on everyone else's. I didn't have to sit there reading the SMB3 box to find out if my hardware was compatible. I had a Nintendo. It was compatible.

Same with the PS3. I'm not aware of any new games that won't run on the first PS3.

I think Sony actually got it pretty much right with the PS3 - they offer different "levels" of consoles to buy, but those levels involve hard drive space (goes to how many games I can store on it, rather than *what* games I can store on it) and bundled accessories.

If you start offering different levels of console that have different performance numbers, you're going to get into situations where you have to have the "PS4 Gold" instead of the "PS4 Aluminum" or some such nonsense in order to run certain games. At that point you might as well buy a PC.

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[metamatic]

Sony is not and was never a game company.

Know how I can tell you're an Xbox fanboy?

(Hint.)

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The only difference that you had between 360's was did you want one with a shiny disk drive and a harddrive and HD cables thrown in or no hard drive, matte disk drive, and no HD cable.

What the hell are you talking about? That was a particularly bad decision because this meant that developers couldn't rely on having the HDD there anymore, unlike the previous generation of console.

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[ArundelCastle]

To me the only advantage of a console is that I can go out and buy a game for it and it is guaranteed to work the same on my console as on everyone else's. I didn't have to sit there reading the SMB3 box to find out if my hardware was compatible. I had a Nintendo. It was compatible.

Unfortunately this is no longer true for any console currently on the market.
-Xbox360 SKUs still come without a hard drive, and a few blockbuster games require one for a fully featured experience. So there is a necessary upgrade path.
-Nintendo products have required peripheral add-ons since the NES, especially in Japan. The major games that require them most often included things as a pack in, like the memory upgrade in Donkey Kong 64, or the Wii Motion Plus in Red Steel 2. That's the only sure fire way to make upgrades mandatory on a console.
-If you bought a PS3 at launch you have every hardware feature they offered. If you buy a Slim PS3 now you are missing out on a long list of features and ports. Nothing has been done to make PS3 games impaired, but the notion that console hardware is static and reliable stopped being valid more than 6 years ago.

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[Shikaku]

Steve Ballmer had no idea how right he was when he chanted about developers. You have to make the right/good tools to develop to actually get software on your platform, rather than having the best hardware but hard to make software. Not that coding is easy, but if you have a shitty compiler you are forced to use and/or no easy debugging, you are going to have a shitty time.

Hence so many dual releases for PC and 360.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[shadowfaxcrx]

Yeah, I know it's no longer universally true, although the PS3 example, I think, isn't a good one because I'm missing out on a couple of USB ports and a few things that don't impact gaming. That goes to what I was talking about with "levels" of consoles being centered around non-core-system features.

And you're right about having to buy specific peripherals for specific games, but that's been true since the earliest consoles. You had to buy paddles to play Kaboom on the Atari 2600, after all. But you didn't have to go out and upgrade the system's processor or graphics. Even if you bought a game made 10 years after the system debuted, it would still run on an original 2600. Same with the PS3. A new PS3 game will run on a first-gen PS3. You might have to buy a motion controller, or upgrade the hard drive, but you won't have to upgrade the running hardware.

Try running a new game on a 10 year old PC and you'll find yourself having to upgrade, at minimum, the motherboard, chip, ram, video card, power supply, and an OS upgrade to boot.

Additionally, the upgrades that you mentioned aren't going to change the operating characteristics of the console. Throwing in a new or bigger hard drive won't change anything about programming the game to work on the console beyond possibly a section on what to do if a hard drive is detected. If consoles start allowing users to upgrade processor, video, etc then game programmers are going to start to have to worry about whether or not their game will work on a whole variety of hardware - or in short as others have noted, you'll end up with a PC equivalent.

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[CronoCloud]

and a few things that don't impact gaming.

Like the PS2 compatibility...sure I've got a CECHE model which does have it, but the Slim's don't and that's a shame.

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[shadowfaxcrx]

I don't buy a console expecting backwards compatibility. It's nice if it has it, but not a requirement. If I had a bunch of PS2 games I wanted to play, I'd get a PS2.

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[Anonymous Coward]

All my games are either PS1 or PS2. With that reasoning, my next upgrade would be a new PS2. And after that another PS2.

Re:Sony is a VCR company.

[shadowfaxcrx]

Well, that's up to you.

A lot of us would just keep the PS2 we already had, and then buy a PS3 if we decided we wanted to play those games as well. You really can hook 2 consoles up to 1 TV.

Not

[adam.skinner]

PC gaming has NEVER had the presence console games have. It's ALWAYS been leaps and bounds ahead of consoles, with the sole exception being the latest generation of consoles in the past few years (where quality has been excellent and controllers have been innovative).

What makes you think now that PC's are suddenly going to steal the console's thunder? Ain't gonna happen.

Gameplay over Graphics

[milbournosphere]

I never really understood the model of a high graphics console. To me the Wii got the model right: concentrate on game-play, not graphics. For hardcore gaming, a PC just makes more sense to me. The keyboard and mouse are there for precise control, you can connect a controller if you prefer that method of control, the graphics are easy to step up over time, and its easier to run modern 3D engines. Plus, there's no big brother controlling your hardware.

Re:Gameplay over Graphics

[Bobfrankly1]

Plus, there's no big brother controlling your hardware.

That's right, on the PC big brother controls the software.

To me the Wii got the model right: concentrate on game-play, not graphics.

It's a shame that Nintendo is the only company that sees that ideal down through the software. Most, if not all 3rd party software for the Wii is undeniably crap.

Re:Gameplay over Graphics

[dadelbunts]

I agree and disagree with you. For the the Wii got it horribly horribly wrong. The games lack graphics and gameplay targeted at a non gamer demographic. Hardcore gaming doesnt have to have hardcore graphics. PS2 was a good balance when that was going strong. That console is full of games i have never seen on anything else. Games like R.A.D and Disaster Report, both not very pretty to look at, but both are "hardcore" . Also on the flip side of easier to run modern engines you have endless driver incompatibility issues and alot of times getting a game to run well on pc is a mission in itself.

Re:Gameplay over Graphics

[milbournosphere]

You make a very good point. Every title I've ever played on the Wii not made by Nintendo or a major platformer has been utter bullocks. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of good software to complete shovelware is the worst in the industry ever.

Popularity

[Arctech]

In the scope of things, the fact that the 360 and the PS3 are showing their age doesn't translate to a mass migration of developers to the PC platform. For a long time now, consoles have gained and held the larger gaming audience compared to the PC, and that market continues to be the biggest and most profitable market. For the majority of the time, PC's hold a significant technological edge over consoles, which is nice for when you want to punch things like Crysis ahead of the graphics curve, but it isn't as if all the console gamers converted to the PC platform because Crysis was pretty.

Re:Popularity

[vakuona]

I also suggest another reason that we aren't going to see a mass migration to PC's is that more people are buying laptops, netbooks and even iPads, so they are not going to have the hardware to run the latest and greatest. Even where the hardware is capable, who is going to want to be banging their laptop keyboards playing some of there games.

the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[alen]

i go way back to the Riva TNT2 and voodoo2 days. i bought a top of the line voodoo2 the day it came out back in 1998. cost me $299. these days a top of the line card is $500 or more and it sucks enough electricity to power a small town.

x-box 360 cost me $299 same as my PS3. i can also use each one to watch media on my tv without the hassle of doing it on the PC which is usually in the opposite side of the house or room. the games are usually the same which means that the gameplay experience is the same. most people won't spend the money just for the graphics card. the "gamer" is now a 40 year old person that plays Cityville on facebook. not a nerd playing Doom, command and conquer or starcraft on their PC

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you're trolling or you've missed the obvious solution: don't buy $500 graphics cards. When the $150 card will get you 80% or more of the performance, there's no reason to.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[0123456]

i go way back to the Riva TNT2 and voodoo2 days. i bought a top of the line voodoo2 the day it came out back in 1998. cost me $299. these days a top of the line card is $500 or more and it sucks enough electricity to power a small town.

While I agree that power usage is insane on high-end GPUs, have you ever heard of inflation? $299 in 1998 money probably isn't far off of $500 in today's money.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Still have my 12MB Voodoo2, but it's different now -- a $150 card will play anything out there right now; Back when it was a Voodoo2, Voodoo1 or TNT; the cards were like $150, $300, and $250. That was it. Lots more selection now, not to mention the rest of the computer is much cheaper.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[alen]

meanwhile the average computer prices have dropped. back in 1998 the average laptop cost $3000. today it's $700. the prices on Intel CPU's have dropped along with other components. the only ones to have gone up are graphics card prices

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[cbope]

Not to mention, factor in that console games are (almost) always more expensive than their PC counterparts. I added the almost because some recent AAA title PC games which are also on consoles are selling for roughly the same price as the console version. That is ridiculous, considering that console hardware is sold for basically zero profit and money is made back on game licensing. PC games *should* be cheaper.

Me, I'd rather have cheaper games, although I do have a Wii and PS2. The consoles are for casual gaming with the spouse while my PC is for hardcore gaming with a mouse & keyboard (and a beast of a graphics card).

Besides, consoles only every manage to just get within one generation of PC graphics hardware. They never match PC's and then as the relentless march of progress continues they quickly fall behind the PC in graphics capabilities. Not saying that is the be-all of gaming, but for me, graphics is a big part of it.

I go all the way back to CGA, Hercules Graphics (no, not the one you are thinking of), Video7 and Paradise VGA (back when Western Digital was into graphics). It's all about pushing the envelope of what is possible.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure a top of the line card is $500+ but you can get a middle of the line card for $250 that is still leaps and bounds ahead of the consoles! (GTX 560 anyone?) and doesn't use all that much more power than a PS3 or an XBox 360!

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Daniel Phillips]

x-box 360 cost me $299 same as my PS3. i can also use each one to watch media on my tv without the hassle of doing it on the PC which is usually in the opposite side of the house or room.

Both 360 and PS3 have way too much fan noise to be decent media centers. Connectivity is also limited, especially for the 360, and a lot of the media software just plain sucks and you have no option to do anything about that.

the games are usually the same which means that the gameplay experience is the same.

Nonsense. A-list title ports to consoles are always dumbed down in one way or another, especially for the 360 which has to run off dvd and therefore has to have low res textures, and sometimes also has content removed. Geometry is normally simplified for the console versions and detail settings are necessarily way more conservative. Access to mods is essentially zero. Game world editors are often omitted from console ports. The control systems are completely different and usually much less effective on the console, for anything other than a beat em up. It is well known that keyboard + mouse users always slaughter gamepad users in shooters, other things being as equal as possible, which they can never quite be because consoles simply do not have the graphics or CPU power.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[uncanny]

Factor in value as well though. Can you run adobe creative suite CS5 on a console gaming system?

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[cbope]

Better check your numbers again. Last time I checked (very recently), a $150 graphics card did a LOT worse than 80% of the performance of a $500 card. Apples-to-Apples at a decent resolution (at least 1920x1200) it's going to be a lot closer to 30-40%, at best. Up the res to 2560x1600 and the gap is even wider.

But then if you are gaming on a mid-res screen like 1680x1050 (or worse), you might be a bit closer though still not reaching 80%.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you need a top-of-the-line graphics card for?

A $150 graphics card can handle any game released today at lowish graphical settings, and it can handle any game released 2+ years ago at medium or high settings. Even at medium, it will still look better than it does on a 5+ year old console GPU.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[alen]

yes $150 cards will play games very well. but will they play them like the video is hyping the new engine?

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, you don't need a top of the line card anymore, nor do you need to upgrade it constantly. My HD4830 cost me $115 at NewEgg over two years ago, and it still plays most games at 1920x1080 with 4xAA and 4-tapAF no problem. There are a few games such as Metro2033 that support some DX11 features my card doesn't, but then neither do the consoles.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[toriver]

No.

Would you want to? No, it's a device with a particular purpose.

Can I run Adobe Creative Suite CS5 on my old PC? Yes. Can I run the game Age of Conan on it? No, I would need to upgrade practically everything.

So the PC is great for non-game purposes, and a small-ish segment of the PC-owning population are the upgradeoholics that keep the PC hardware business running as they mistake power for playability.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Octopuscabbage]

The only reason you use your xbox to stream media is because you don't have the PC plugged in. Why not just plug your computer into your tv and play from there all the time.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't need a top of the line card to play at perfectly awesome graphics levels.
I run all my games at 1280x960 (max is 2560 x 1600) with all the effects at full blast, including anti-aliasing. My video card cost me 135 bucks.
http://www.infotechnow.com/product_info.php?cPath=32_83&products_id=7664 and that's probably not even the cheapest price.
My point is that console people always holler about the cost of upgrading when it is not an issue at all.
And the pc games look way better and frequently have options and capabilities not available to consoles, like going prone in BF2.
I just upgraded my mobo, ram (4 gb), cpu (amd quad core 3 ghz), video card (link above) and power supply - $600. This pc will last me 5 years at least before I'll worry about video upgrades. And the hardware I replaced was 4 years old.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Tynin]

i go way back to the Riva TNT2 and voodoo2 days. i bought a top of the line voodoo2 the day it came out back in 1998. cost me $299. these days a top of the line card is $500 or more and it sucks enough electricity to power a small town.

x-box 360 cost me $299 same as my PS3. i can also use each one to watch media on my tv without the hassle of doing it on the PC which is usually in the opposite side of the house or room. the games are usually the same which means that the gameplay experience is the same. most people won't spend the money just for the graphics card. the "gamer" is now a 40 year old person that plays Cityville on facebook. not a nerd playing Doom, command and conquer or starcraft on their PC

That is because you are still thinking you need to have the flagship product from whatever graphics card company. You can do better than just get by with an Radeon 5570, the model I bought is even fanless, and doesn't require any extra power connectors like those damn 6-pin molex power ports that older PSU's don't support! some cards even want 2 of them! and yet it still runs most games for me at 1920x1080 with most everything turned up. You can get this card for ~$70. It ran the Valve Source SDK Base 2007 benchmark with everything maxed was 122 fps (on a rather low end AMD Phenom II X2 555 3.2ghz cpu).

Honestly, if you keep an extra (or even use your current) computer case, PSU, DVD-ROM, and HDD, you can build out a better / faster gaming computer for under $299.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103846
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130290
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146748
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161342

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Azaril]

While the top of the line cards are stupidly expensive, part of the reason is that they are actually two cards - the 5970 and the 6990, for instance, are both dual core cards. Aside from that a mid range card will only be differentiable from the top end cards at WQXGA resolutions and only costs a maximum of $200 dollars.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost nobody buys $500+ graphics cards. They are released only as a marketing and epenis wiggling. Most games run better on $150 graphics card than they do on consoles.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[pacbowl]

i go way back to the Riva TNT2 and voodoo2 days. i bought a top of the line voodoo2 the day it came out back in 1998. cost me $299. these days a top of the line card is $500 or more and it sucks enough electricity to power a small town.

x-box 360 cost me $299 same as my PS3. i can also use each one to watch media on my tv without the hassle of doing it on the PC which is usually in the opposite side of the house or room. the games are usually the same which means that the gameplay experience is the same. most people won't spend the money just for the graphics card. the "gamer" is now a 40 year old person that plays Cityville on facebook. not a nerd playing Doom, command and conquer or starcraft on their PC

That's not bad. I go back to the Matrox Mystique and Millennium days. I bought the first 4mb voodoo 1 passthrough card a few days after they came out for almost $400. Let me tell you, no upgrade since has ever made me squee as much as firing up Quake2 and selecting the voodoo 3dfx renderer for the first time. I shat myself.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

First, a "top of the line" graphics card cost several thousand dollars in 1998. Your Voodoo2 was a cheap mainstream consumer gaming card with decent 3D performance. It absolutely, positively, was not the top of the line card in 1998.

Second, the Nvidia 580 GTX is faster than the most powerful supercomputer in the world in 1998. The 580 GTX rates at about 1.4 TFlops. The ASCI RED supercomputer was the fastest computer in the world in 1997 with only 1.3 TFlops. Instead of comparing the Nvidia 580 GTX to a $300 graphics card, a better comparison is with a multi-million dollar super computer.

So in short, your Voodoo2 wasn't the top of the line card that you remember it being, and the 580 GTX is five orders of magnitude cheaper today than it would have been in 1998.

(Also, the 580 GTX uses about 250 watts, which is probably what you have in the light fixture above your kitchen table. By comparison, the ASCI RED sucked close to a megawatt, which literally is enough to power a small town.)

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

According to benchmarks, a $150 GeForce GTX 460 gets about 60% of the performance of a $500 GeForce GTX 580. You need to spend $235 on a GeForce GTX 470 to get 80%.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Narishma]

Not everybody has those high resolution screens. I just replaced my old 1440x900 by a new 1600x900 a few months back and it's good enough for me.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

True but professional level graphics cards of that generation would have been about the equivalent price as today's high end cards. Therefore, I argue that what has happened is simply that hardware has become more accessible to the general public at large due to demand. Also the dollar has taken a beating in recent years and you have factor in inflation.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[thegarbz]

1. Buy a computer not designed to match the Xbox.
2. Place it somewhere completely different.
3. Come online and bitch about it not doing the same thing.
4. Profit???

So on the flip side I built a computer for the sole purpose of being a media centre. I spent about $300 on an older processor and graphics card and found an old motherboard, harddisk and optical drive to use. It sits under my TV. It works with the VCR remote. It works with the Xbox controller. It plays games (like Just Cause 2 or equivalent Xbox360 quality games). It has a keyboard and thus does so much more than a cheap Xbox360 ever could.

Sounds like you have buyers remorse, either that or you didn't do any research.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[grumbel]

Judging by these numbers it is probably closer to 50% (assuming thats a linear scale, which it might not be). Anyway that number is only the raw performance, which might matter a lot for videophile people, but for Average Joe it becomes far less important. What matters there is that the games can be play without suffering stuttering graphics or plain old incompatibilities and when that is taken into account, even a $70 graphics card will give you access to like 90% of the games, maybe only at medium setting and maybe without AA, but still perfectly tolerable and probably above what a console can do.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[moppop]

So have video cards. The average consumer price of a video card is $200-$300. Even according to Nvidia, you can play Crysis2 at "hardcore" settings at 1680x1050 or 1080p with a GTX460, which is $150-$200. You made a stupid assumption just because they're marketing $500 end-all-be-all cards that you have to have them to be relevant. That is not fricken true. You can't compare the $500-600 bigguns to normal cards because they actually aren't designed for gamers. Those honkin huge cards are designed for universities and for power junkies; the Fermi architecture wasn't specifically designed for gamers - it was designed to push the GPU futher into the GP-GPU role with the aid of the CUDA package. It's just icing on the cake that they snooker in gamers along with the simulators. Both ATI and Nvidia are realizing that their workstation line of cards (where $500 is LOW END) is being eroded ever so slightly by the mainstream line. While your Voodoo2 was $299, the workstation card ATI FireGL was $599 in 1998; they both had different purposes, but those purposes have been blending in the newest generation of cards. If you want to know the true cost of ownership for the console, look to both the games and the peripherals. All console manufactures essentially loose money on console purchases because they have to subsidize them to hell and back to get people to buy them. Anyone remember that the PS3 was pushing $599 AT RELEASE? Look at the 360 controller...it's $40 in many places with sales to be a bit lower for the plain-jane wired controller. How many controllers do you have?

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that power usage is insane on high-end GPUs, have you ever heard of inflation?

Very true. $299 in 1998 comes out to ~$392 today! And that's not even getting into the fact that there's more "room" in the market for "high end" cards, now that the technology for dedicated hardware graphics has firmed up significantly.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[moppop]

Now you're backtracking.... Also, videos hyping a a new engine (Tech Demos) NEVER look as crisp as the actual game; seriously, that's like being disappointed that the game doesn't look the the pre-rendered CGI intro sequence or commercials. Give it up man, you got owned; man up to it.

Re:the insane graphics card prices kill the deal

[Uberbah]

i go way back to the Riva TNT2 and voodoo2 days. i bought a top of the line voodoo2 the day it came out back in 1998. cost me $299. these days a top of the line card is $500 or more and it sucks enough electricity to power a small town.

If you insist on making a $500 video card a point of comparison with PC's, then I insist on making a $4,000 high end LCD TV a point of comparison for consoles. Funny how often console fanboys forget about the TV.

This always happens.

[orsty3001]

PC development goes up, console development goes down. Console development goes up, PC development goes down.

PCs have different classes of games

[SplashMyBandit]

Not only do PC gamers generally have better hardware than consoles (better CPU, GPU, RAM, keyboard, mouse, TrackIR head-tracking), they also get better and more diverse titles.

For example, take flight simulators. Consoles have 'flying games' but not 'simulators' per see (not in the class of: X-Plane, FlightSim X, IL-2 Sturmovik, LockOn Flaming Cliffs 2, DCS:BlackShark, or DCS:A-10C). Yes, these are 'niche' in terms of the overall game market, but who cares about what the producers think? A product that matches your interest is either available for your platform or it is not. Consoles simple don't have the *breadth* of titles that PCs do.

While Wings of Prey was nice for the consoles (although it looked better on the PC) it really lacks the depth of something like DCS:A-10C (if you have the kit to use the DirectX 11 graphics in 64-bit it is amazing). Have a look at the DCS:A-10C trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co8LKJh6Xc0 (not a redirect to goatse, I promise). Or Flaming Cliffs 2 (aka LockOn Platinum): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99_hoJNj3ys

IL-2: Cliffs of Dover looks amazing as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVUSp1V3cVw

I bought a PS3 at launch and it is great for casual gaming or gaming in a few genres (FPS, RTS, RPG, racing) . If that's all you want then it is fine. However, the depth of the experience is very shallow to what you can get with a PC. Consoles may make more money for the publishers, but it is certainly not a better experience for players (I personally *hate* not being able to join my mates on some servers since the console doesn't always let me decide which servers to join, which is something you can usually do with a PC). I won't even start discussing modability for PC vs console ...

Re:PCs have different classes of games

[lidocaineus]

While you may be right that PCs are better for certain classes of games, consoles are just as good at different classes as well. As for being diverse... that's up for debate. Consoles have some crazy niche titles that would never show up on the PC and vice versa. You just don't hear about them as much because they're drowned in the roar of the AAA titles every year.

don't forget mod / user maps!

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget mod / user maps!

Breaking News!

[Anonymous Coward]

New hardware is better than old hardware!

Stop the presses, this must go on the front page!

I must agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

I must agree, as when I look at current crop of the games (namely Mafia II) and their PC counterparts... vs. consoles' versions... There is nothing more to add from me. I'm truly loosing interest in my own game consoles and rapidly reorienting to gaming on my Win partition of my Mac. Cream of the crop games that makes the XBOX360 games in comparison look like PS2. -=[';/

how long consoles will be the target platform

[C_amiga_fan]

I'd say the ~200 million market is safe, and will be the "platform" at least until 2015, when the Wii 2, Playstation 4, and Xbox 1080 arrive on the scene and blow PC graphics out of the water (or at least consoles are on par with PC).

It's a cycle and it's been happening for 30+ years now. PCs have always been more advanced, but then a new console arrives every ~5 years and comes close to what a PC can do. The console remains dominant.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[slyrat]

I'd say the ~200 million market is safe, and will be the "platform" at least until 2015, when the Wii 2, Playstation 4, and Xbox 1080 arrive on the scene and blow PC graphics out of the water (or at least consoles are on par with PC).

It's a cycle and it's been happening for 30+ years now. PCs have always been more advanced, but then a new console arrives every ~5 years and comes close to what a PC can do. The console remains dominant.

Right, but it has passed the 5 year mark and this is why attention is going back to the pc. I would agree with you if the wii 2 / ps4 / xbox 3 were coming out this year or next.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Ltap]

I would rather say that consoles are aimed at different people. Compare, for instance, the relatively simple games on the NES and other late-80s consoles versus the very first tactical, strategy, and management games on the Amiga, IBM PC, and other home computer systems. As time has gone on and the negative stigma against consoles degraded, they began to share games. Far from being a repeated pattern, it has only really been true for one or two console generations. However, something else has degraded as well. Rather than specializing a game around its platform, geared towards a certain level of graphics, a certain type of input, etc., a game is being treated as its own entity that can just be dumped onto any platform. Because of this, games necessarily pander to the lowest common denominator (currently the Xbox 360) in terms of performance and input.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[shmlco]

"Right, but it has passed the 5 year mark and this is why attention is going back to the pc."

Actually, I think attention is going towards mobile devices like the iPhone and iPad. IIRC, there have been 39 million Xbox 360's sold as of January 2010.

There are over 100 million iOS devices. Games like Infinity Blade and Rage are just the beginning.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Lennie]

I think Microsoft is at an advantage here, because they play both sides and developers probably have an easier time porting between the two Microsoft platforms.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not accounting for the main flaw of consoles: they are becoming too much like PCs.

Consoles (I'm thinking back in the days of the SNes, even the N64) consoles were cheaper than computers and far easier to use (games were plug and play).
Today, consoles are getting increasingly complicated - they do much more than play games and some games need to be installed, like computer games. Is it good that your PS3 lets you watch bluray movies? Probably, but the more features there are, the less likely we are to use the full potential of consoles. I only play games on my PS3 so I feel like I'm not using it fully. Also, I'm sure my PS3 can do stuff I don't even know about. It makes consoles seem complicated. Then what?
Most people are intimidated by this perceived complexity of consoles. They wish for consoles like the N64.
The people who know a lot about consoles aren't intimadated, but these people are few. And some of them might even start to think "Why don't I just get a PC? If I'm going to know my machine so well anyway, at least a PC will let me do more stuff".

I still do not understand what role consoles are supposed to fill. Back when I had a SNes and an N64 I felt consoles were simple, easy to use game systems. I felt the PC was not a rival at all to consoles. Today, it seems to me that console makers want to transform their consoles into PCs (I feel that way because every new generation of console is more similar to computers). So I ask "Why not just get a PC then, why bother to transform consoles into PC?"

The more similar consoles are to PCs, the bigger a rival PCs are. Consoles can not win that fight. If their goal is to be PCs, well PCs are already PCs. And when consoles finally are PCs, well they won't be consoles anymore, will they?
Consoles need to fight in their own field, there's no hope winning by competing against PCs.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Lifyre]

Except 2015 would make it closer to 10 years than 5...

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Anonymous Coward]

..where have you seen any mentioning that the next xbox will be called 1080? I've seen xbox 3 and xbox 720, but never that.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[geekoid]

The very nature of the industry means that console will never 'blow away' PC graphic cards from the same era.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Seumas]

The problem is not just what they're capable of. It's what they cost. For the price of my last video card, you could own *both* a PS3 and a 360 and have top of the line (for that market) graphics, until the end of the console's life (since a 360 from 2011 is obviously serving the same experience as a 360 from 2005, sans certain RROD experiences). So someone could have a machine for $300 that gives them the same experience 30-million other people are having or they can buy a top of the line PC that will be bottom of the line by the end of that console cycle. Or they could buy a midrange PC several times over during that cycle. Either way, it's hard to beat the $300 of the console.

If all anyone cared about was graphics, it'd be the PC non-stop until the end of time, for obvious reasons.

In fact, if you read a lot of gaming forums today when the topic comes up about "Are you ready for a new generation of consoles, yet?", most of the responses (I'd estimate 80%) say "fuck no, I don't want a new generation of consoles yet! there's no reason for it as the current generation does everything I could possibly want". Of course, there are people like myself who say "hell yes, I love technology and video games and want to have my mind blown". I mean, more toys means more awesome. And graphics aren't the only increase that comes with these things. A certain complexity and depth is possible with the advancement and you want that more than once a decade.

The sad fact is that the gaming industry seems to be stagnant and most people are just fine with it remaining stagnant.

The only hope -- and I've been saying this for a year or two, now -- is that the next generation of consoles takes SO long to come out, that even the die-hard anti-new-stuff people can't take playing on the old systems any more. At this rate, it's obvious we wouldn't see a new console until the end of 2013 at the earliest. By that point, the current consoles will have been about 8 years old. They'll be running on 2005 console hardware (that wasn't exactly top of the line, even back then) while 2013 PCs will be largely running on 2013 hardware.

So, if it takes any longer than that for consoles to come out, the different between current consoles and current PCs as a gaming experience may be so vast that nobody can stick their heads in the sand and even the die-hard console-only gamers will say "holy shit, I have got to get me a new gaming PC". Gaming on the PC will see a resurgence. Developers will flood back into the PC market and do some amazing stuff. It'll flourish again. For a little while.

Then the next console will come out and everyone will go back to their $300-$400 consoles for another decade while the PC dies again.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Consoles have never "blown PC graphics out of the water" and they are not likely to ever do so. Not that I particularly care (not much of a gamer these days) but my monitors have much higher resolution combined with a much smaller dot pitch (or whatever the proper term is for LCD crystals) than my TV does. Even if a console came out that had a faster CPU, more memory, faster GPU, and more graphics memory than my computer, the display would still be hamstrung by the output device. But none of the above four are likely to happen (the next generation of consoles will probably be about 3 years behind the PC technology curve, as usual) and certainly not ALL four.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[mcvos]

The might blow away PCs of the same price. New consoles are often sold at a loss. PCs never are.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>lowest common denominator (currently the Xbox 360)

You can't be serious. X360 lesser than the PS3? Hardly. They use the same PowerPC core, with only slight variations (the secondary processors). Besides: Everyone knows the Wii is the lowest on the totem pole.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>it has passed the 5 year mark

That's because progress has slowed. Let's be honest: Most people can't see the difference between a 1080p PS3 or X360 game versus a PC game. (Heck a lot of people can't even see the difference between DVD upscaled to 1080 and a Bluray.) Therefore console makes decided to extend their current models to a 10-year-span rather than the usual 5.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Ltap]

The Wii is partially separated from this grouping, as its control scheme is so unusual (or was) that most games weren't ported to it and its own games were Wii-exclusives. This is changing now that other consoles have jumped onto the motion control bandwagon, however.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[slyrat]

"Right, but it has passed the 5 year mark and this is why attention is going back to the pc."

Actually, I think attention is going towards mobile devices like the iPhone and iPad. IIRC, there have been 39 million Xbox 360's sold as of January 2010.

There are over 100 million iOS devices. Games like Infinity Blade and Rage are just the beginning.

I do agree that mobile devices are going to get much more attention. Though it seems more likely that will strip people away from the psp/ds rather than the pc/xbox/ps3/wii.

Re:how long consoles will be the target platform

[Uberbah]

For the price of my last video card, you could own *both* a PS3 and a 360 and have top of the line (for that market) graphics, until the end of the console's life (since a 360 from 2011 is obviously serving the same experience as a 360 from 2005, sans certain RROD experiences).

Funny how the console fanboys always leave out the cost of the TV when making comparisons to PCs.

So....

[theangrypeon]

What was all that a while back about PC gaming being dead?

Re:So....

[Turnpike Lad]

A bunch of thankfully over-pessimistic malarkey.

PC better tech, inferior social

[gatkinso]

I like PC games because they are so amazing, but I like the consoles because my whole family can gather around and play (and their graphics are very decent too albeit not as amazing as the PC).

Both have strengths.

Follow the money.

[Peganthyrus]

As long as the consoles are still the source of a significant return on the investment of running your game studio for a couple of years, they'll continue to be worth targeting. Piracy's a lot easier on computers than on consoles. And making games with this level of detail is going to get even more stupidly expensive.

Plus of course other factors like "some people prefer sitting on the couch with a gamepad to hunching in front of the computer with keyboard/mouse".

Blimey

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games."

Wow... just wow. I guess the successes of the DS and the Wii weren't mainstream enough for these guys to notice.

PS3, XBox, die die die

[Daniel Phillips]

But the worst of all worlds would be if nothing but PC gaming on Microsoft platforms remains standing. Fortunately that is a problem that we can solve and are solving, while having a lot of fun doing it.

It is my belief that this generation is the last hoorah for the console world. Economies of scale in computer graphics hardware dictate that the life of a console generation must be kept unrealistically short in order to avoid the kind of obsolescence we see now, while the cost of developing exclusive content is going through the roof. Yes, there will be a PS4 and an Xbox 444, but whether they will ever make a profit, or whether such blighted spawn of the devil are ultimately destined to kill their hosts, is an open question.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[dadelbunts]

Yes. Just like it has been for EVERY other console generation.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, who the fuck are you to tell millions of people that their gaming platform of choice is wrong?

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[Anonymous Coward]

Duurrrrrr.

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

"blighted spawn of the devil"?

Yes...consoles are satanic, whereupon your leet gaming rig is cooled by the light of Christ....I see where this is going...

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[alen]

i can take a console game and play it on any console it was made for at people's homes. with PC games you can't do that. you have to install, fight the DRM, worry about hardware requirements, etc

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[IrquiM]

Obsolescence? Get real! Even PS2 games are still going strong and making money for the developers. The fact that some hardcore FPS fans think consoles are crap, doesn't mean that the rest of the world do.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[bloodhawk]

You are living in a dream world and perhaps should consider stepping back into reality. This generation of consoles has so far sold around 200 million of them. If anything it is PC gaming that is gradually dieing, consoles offer consistency and reliability to the developers and price and simplicity to end users. Console gaming is still increasing while PC gaming while not on its last hoorah it is certainly becoming more niche and for the hardcore. If anything I think the next gen of consoles will perhaps bring about PC gamings darkest days.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is my belief that this generation is the last hoorah for the console world."

That's because you are an idiot.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[Daniel Phillips]

If anything it is Windows gaming that is gradually dieing.

FTFY.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[Daniel Phillips]

Obsolescence? Get real! Even PS2 games are still going strong and making money for the developers.

Do you claim that the PS2 is not obsolescent? Surely you do not mean to be so bold (trying hard to avoid the word stupid here).

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[Daniel Phillips]

i can take a console game and play it on any console it was made for at people's homes. with Windows games you can't do that. you have to install, fight the DRM...

FTFY.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[Daniel Phillips]

My graphics rig has an air cooled video card several times the power of the one in the PS3, which has an obnoxious noisy fan and still melts down from time to time.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[CronoCloud]

What he probably means is that you can still buy PS2's and PS2 games...new in stores. It's a bit unusual in the console realm to see a system and games still being sold..new 10 years later. You couldn't buy NES in 1995 or SNES's in 2001. The N64 was dropped like a rock when the Gamecube came out. But they STILL keep making PS2s and PS2 games.

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[meheler]

There is a market for simple games which work well cross-platform (minecraft as an example), and there is a market for bleeding edge. The latter, as it stands right now, means DirectX and Windows. More specifically, it means DirectX 10/Vista(well, Win7)+ as many developers (including a very very large developer who shall rename unnamed) are even planning to drop DirectX 9 support on future cross-platform PC titles and instead implement lower-quality OpenGL display for XP and Mac. In the future, pretty things which can't be achieved using SM3-era techniques won't be available even on XP as I'd expect the XP GL implementations to share much of its code with the Mac GL driver and as such not make use of the capabilities of GL3 or 4.

This is particularly true with the push for stereoscopic 3D gaming which, while there is some competition out there, means nVidia 3D Vision/DirectX only. There is 3D Vision Pro for OpenGL on Quadros using quad-buffered stereo, but that is impractical and pretty much requires application support... and good luck with finding games supported well by alternative 3D implementations (even ATI's). Having attended GDC, I saw a huge push for 3D gaming. And TBH, it's warranted.. the effect is awesome. Personally, I hate 3D movies as they give me a headache, but the ability to tweak the convergence point and depth of stereoscopic 3D with a realtime-rendered viewport to your comfort level puts it right in that sweet spot.

I think the fact is that gaming in general just continues to grow. Gamers love Angry Birds (though I can't figure out why) and Farmville (this one eludes me even moreso), but gamers also love Battlefield and Crysis. It's expensive to develop a bleeding edge game, equivalent to the cost of producing a summer blockbuster, yet developers continue to do so because it's a good investment.

I'd be happy to see the latest hardware and games work well on alternative platforms, but it's not a reality at the moment. With Apple steadfastly refusing to allow 3rd party video drivers, while keeping the system OpenGL locked at 2.1ish (with some proprietary extensions), that just isn't going to happen soon. Linux at present isn't even worth mentioning as a gaming platform and seems unlikely ever to be. When you're talking about gamers who invest hundreds on just their video cards, dropping the cash on a Windows upgrade is a non-issue. Windows just works, with top level support for the latest hardware.

Fact is the next generation of consoles are years away. Game developers do not have even preliminary specs from the manufacturers and are even questioning whether it'll happen, or if we'll see something else which moves more toward a unified entertainment platform. Until that happens, the consoles will be in a state of "3+ years away" and never getting closer. Then when they do come out, it'll be 1-2 years before anyone but the hardcore console gamers even bother with the systems due to cost.

Anyway, I share your belief that this is could be the last generation of consoles. And to that I say, good riddance. I'm playing Dragon Age 2 right now and while it's a great game, the clearly-designed-for-clumsy-controllers interface is an annoyance. I have a mouse with a scroll wheel, I have a keyboard, and I have a screen that has been capable of higher than 720 vertical scan lines for the past 20 years. Anyway..

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[keith_nt4]

I came up with this metaphor at one point: Consoles are popular commercial networks like Fox or CBS. They have their American Idol (Gears of War) and their CSIs (Various CoDs?) which get all the attention and regularly have millions of players/viewers. While the PC is like PBS: hardly any viewers from one night to another (not nearly the big sellers as consoles), then a Ken Burns documentary (big PC exclusive) comes out like "The War" (SC2/WoW) and 10s of millions of viewers (players) watch (play) and the PC/PBS is suddenly relevant/existence is acknowledged. PBS and Fox can live side by side and hopefully PCs and consoles can do the same...

Re:PS3, XBox, die die die

[Daniel Phillips]

This is particularly true with the push for stereoscopic 3D gaming which, while there is some competition out there, means nVidia 3D Vision/DirectX only.

Nice post, however did you know that even lowly glxgears runs in 3D stereoscopic mode? It's not exactly rocket science and DirectX in no way has a monopoly on it.

Let me be the first to welcome game devs back.

[Anonymous Coward]

While you were away making linear, short games with muddy textures, some things have happened.

*IE no longer has a 90% market share.
*hardware accelerated audio isn't as important as it used to be because any modern CPU can do audio processing in its sleep.
*Not all of us want to subject ourselves to Windows in order to enjoy a game: some use Macs and some use Linux.
*Nope, Duke Nukem Forever hasn't been released yet! Don't worry, it will be along any day now!
*The game mapping and modding community is still here, waiting to add free value to your PC game for you.

Re:Let me be the first to welcome game devs back.

[Anonymous Coward]

*Not all of us want to subject ourselves to Windows in order to enjoy a game: some use Macs and some use Linux.

To fix that, you need to fix some of their inherited problems. Macs inability to run anything beyond OpenGL 2 means its API is even more limited than that of the current consoles. Mac OS sadly only equals the original Xbox in capability.
Linux prime problem is the very patchy drivers for graphics cards. When the system can't reliably maintain its stability in games - it becomes frustrating to play on, and code for. Not to mention its usershare is poor, and the vast majority of those users have an alternative and better suited OS on the same machine in the first place. Linux does have OpenGL 4.1 though - so unlike Mac OS it at least has the capability of pushing out some decent looking titles.

Typical case of open vs closed

[airfoobar]

The competition in the console hardware market is PUNY compared to the competition PC hardware markers are faced with. It's relatively easy to make a console and sit on your loins for the next decade or so until somebody else bothers to innovate -- as long as the console hardware is impossibly to modify, the console marker has a monopoly on hardware as well as development licenses. On the other hand, PC market competition is FIERCE, because it's an open platform -- anyone can make PC hardware, anyone can make software without paying Microsoft for a license to develop on their OS.

That's why the PC is blazing ahead of the consoles, and as long as we are in a reasonably free market, it will always stay ahead.

Re:Typical case of open vs closed

[Mike Mentalist]

On the other hand, PC market competition is FIERCE, because it's an open platform -- anyone can make PC hardware

Yes, we have a choice of AMD or Intel! And then a choice of Nvidia and, er, AMD again! Woo.

That's why the PC is blazing ahead of the consoles, and as long as we are in a reasonably free market, it will always stay ahead.

Blazing ahead in what sense exactly? Raw power? Sales? Popularity?

ping pong

[Anonymous Coward]

It always seems to ping pong back and force. Consoles will kill PC gaming, then PC gaming is killing consoles.... blah blah blah

I still will always prefer to sit on my couch with an Xbox controller (or my phone for that matter) than do any gaming on my PC. The 360 graphics are plenty good IMO.

FUD

[Bobfrankly1]

Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games."

What a load of crap.

Consoles will be the target platform for the development of blockbuster games as long as there is an audience for them. I love the PC as a gaming platform, but blockbusting developers care primarily about one thing, sales. You have this huge installed base of 360s and PS3s, and the people who buy games are playing on these consoles. Also consider that in our economy, the people who want to play new game "x" are not going to be able to go buy the new hardware required to play new game "x" on the PC.

As well, once there is a big enough jump to make in graphics (or features, looking at the Wii), that can be made at a reasonable price point (one would think Sony would have learned that lesson with the PS3), Microsoft and Sony will release new updated consoles that will compete with/overtake the abilities of the *common* gaming PC. The process repeats, as it has many times before. The PC ends up being the testing grounds for technologies that are later integrated into the consoles. Remember when you could only get a good multiplayer experience on the PC?

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the money is in consoles...sales are orders of magnitude higher generally for the console versions versus the PC versions of a game.

Like others here I haven't done PC gaming in 6 or 7 years, never plan to go back. PC's were and from I can see still are a maintenance PITA (between buying upgrades and doing the upgrades and fiddling with the settings...), and I've been dealing with computers since the C64 was new and I've been a professional software developer for 15 years. If I don't want to do it, sure as heck the average joe doesn't (no matter how easy it gets).

At least we don't have to deal with jumpers on the motherboards anymore...conflicting IRQ and DMA settings that I can only fix by flipping a jumper? Oh great...there is no combination that works with this hardware set...I just wanted to plug in a soundcard, gfx card or dvd drive so I could play game X.

Games written for my console will always work for my console. Drop disc in, play. Done. :)

What I think is that the PC gaming area is the experimental area. Figure out where the consoles are going to be, develop the chops to use them to the fullest, and when the next gen of consoles come out make the games that will make the big money. It will never be as big as it was back in the 90's again, consoles are the better general gaming solution. PC's still require too much knowledge/maintenance/money, and the games are too easily pirated (or turned into a pain to install/play due to game makers trying to protect themselves from said pirates (and ironically they always fail to protect themselves).

Re:Consoles are out of date by definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day I think the PS3/360 for $400/500 or whatever offered higher performance at their price point. :)

How is this news?

[dadelbunts]

This happens EVERY generation cycle. Are we still amazed by it like its a magical thing made by a wizard? It not even that hard to understand. One is an upgradeable platform and the other is not. Next cycle consoles will be alot faster and it will start all over again. What next, water found on earth?

Did you read the GDC overview?

[Anonymous Coward]

it appears that the anon OP missed the point of why this was created.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/08/epic-games-shows-jaw-dropping-graphics-for-next-generation-consoles-video/

"Nvidia executives also showed off the technology today at their analyst meeting (which we covered here) and we’ve captured video of it below. The 3D graphics represent a new peak in realism and give us a good idea of what Epic thinks the next generation of console games — whenever they come — should look like."

The same old song since 1974...

[LordStormes]

As a PC and console developer with over 50 different consoles connected to my TV, including everything from the Fairchild Channel F to the 360 and PS3 Slims, I consider myself something of an expert on this. Since 1974 or so, the same pattern occurs. Consoles come out, with comparable graphics capability to the current-gen PCs. Everybody says, "Wow, look at these awesome graphics!" (I remember when they said that about the IntelliVision!) Then, the console is released, and it's the "current-gen" console for 4-5 years, effectively freezing innovation on that console. During that time, several revisions of the bleeding edge in PCs occur. Right now, the current-gen consoles are running on 2006 tech, so everybody correctly says, "Wow, the PC can do so much more with 5 years more evolution than the Xbox!" and they're right. But when the Xbox 720, PS4, and (insert ridiculous name Nintendo comes up with for new console here) come out this/next year, the gap will be closed, and everybody will sound stunned with their "Console gaming is back!" articles. Rinse and repeat in another 5 years. The only way to break the cycle would be more frequent updates of the consoles, which defeats one of the biggest draws to console gaming, the "No matter what, if you have an Xbox, you can play this game and have a good experience" factor. Compare that to the middle-to-high-end gaming PC I bought in May 2010, which now can't run 80% of the games being released this summer on their optimum settings. PC gaming is for people who want to pour money into upgrading their hardware every 6 months, and console gamers are people who would rather spend that $200 on the Assassin's Creed box set that includes actual DNA from Ezio Auditore than another 8 gigs of video RAM. This is a non-story.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Turnpike Lad]

Again, the main difference now is that consoles _aren't_ going to be upgrading next year or the year after. It's going to be another few years before we get a new generation of consoles, in which time PCs will outpace consoles to an unprecedented degree.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[LordStormes]

I think we'll see a Wii 2 in time for Christmas 2012, and an Xbox 3 isn't outside the realm of possibility for that same timeframe. Sony is still spending too much dev time trying to patch Geohot out of existence every two days to worry about a PS4. The Wii has the most ground to cover - it is by far the weakest in graphics, processing power and non-gaming multimedia capabilities, and its one novelty, motion gaming, has now been one-upped by both of its competitors. Nintendo NEEDS a new console to remain relevant in the living room, and its board room knows it. Remember, Nintendo doesn't generally announce new consoles until they're almost done (the 3DS wasn't even a rumor until about 4 months before its launch), so there could be Wii 2 prototypes running right now that we aren't aware of.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Merk42]

They aren't because they don't need to be.

People are still buying the games

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Turnpike Lad]

Exactly. It makes financial sense to do it this way (at least for Sony and Microsoft - LordStormes is right that Nintendo is going to have to bring out a new console soon.) It just means that for a few years, PCs are going to be much better at graphics than consoles.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[dave562]

What do you think about dealing with hackers / cheaters (ie. aimbots, wall hacks, etc)? I started playing PC games on a 286 when Microprose simulators (Gunship, etc) were cutting edge. I've been playing FPS games "online" since Quake on the LAN. I've never once used an aimbot, wallhack or any other cheat program (not even "trainers" for single player games). About two years ago I got fed up with playing against hackers and bought a PS3. In my experience, it seems like the "war" against hackers is unwinable. As long as the end user has control of the platform like they do with the PC, there will be ways to circumvent any anti-hack measure a developer can come up with. Do you agree?

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[keith_nt4]

This comment may not be of value since I can't remember where I heard/read it but I heard/read some place that there was some cheating going on in some multi-player PS3 titles thanks to that crypto key (whatever) being released. Perhaps that isn't true, just interesting.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, same story every five years.
and five years from now, i'll still be playing games, where the game designers used their money for actual "game design" instead of spending it all on fleeting eye-candy.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[NIN1385]

Well said. You hit the nail right on the head.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be on to something here...

Nintendo has by far the most money to burn on R&D thanks to all the profit they've made on the Wii. It's safe to say they haven't burned all of that cash on R&D for the handheld market or on making games for the Wii. So what have they done with all that money? It makes sense to assume that it has gone to hardware R&D.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Anonymous Coward]

The voice of reason! You must be new here.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple appliance aspect is why I have a game console.

It's simple, cheap and low maintenence, and good enough.

I simply look for the big Wii or PS3 logo on the box, put the disk in the console and play. Isn't that kinda the point of a toy?

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[gregarine]

Has Xbox 3 been announced? Seriously. 2012 NO WAY!

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[LordStormes]

The thing with the 360 is that it's basically a PC. The identical form factor, with an incremental improvements in graphics chip and CPU, hard drive size, and maybe upgrading to 801.11n and gigabit Ethernet, is basically all they'd need to do a console refresh. It would be completely backward compatible. It's already got all the trappings you'd want (wifi, plenty of USB ports, improved cooling) except the ones it couldn't have (no way Sony lets them do Blu-Ray on it), and people love the controllers as evidenced by the fact that it changed very little from the original Xbox (especially when you throw Kinect into the mix). The 360 uses by and large the same APIs for development as Windows, so it'd be trivial to give the unit a DirectX 11-compatible GPU and almost instantly get all the benefits of modern PCs without sacrificing backward compatibility.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[dave562]

I heard the same thing about MoH. I'm not completely convinced, but I can't be unbiased about it either. Once someone says there are hackers playing, you start seeing it whether or not it is really going on. But yeah, I've seen some questionable players who either have VERY fast connections, or have some sort of auto-aim.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Raenex]

I think the whole premise of the article is bullshit. Graphics have stopped improving at the tremendous rate it used to. The difference between the current console generation and the previous one is nowhere near as great as previous generations (which is one reason why the Wii did so well).

The difference between current PC graphics and current console graphics isn't that great, either. A bit more high-fidelity, yes, but it just isn't that compelling of an upgrade. The next console refresh will be a yawner.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[Anonymous Coward]

PC gaming is for people who want to pour money into upgrading their hardware every 6 months...

Umm....no. My computer hasn't been upgraded since 2008 and it's still doing fine, thanks. You can even overclock your computer if you want more juice out of your current rig.

If you said something like "PC gaming is for people who like to tinker with their systems to get the best experience possible," then you might have a point.

Re:The same old song since 1974...

[MemoryDragon]

Well you overlook something in your statement, you wont necessarily have to play on maximum settings. The consoles have stalled the development at least to the degree that the console level is the bare minimum which by then is a low range pc card (not from Intel)
so you have the choice, you can operate on a budget and never change the graphics card and ram until the next console cycle and you still will have better graphics than on the console, or you can work your way along the bleeding edge then you are in the upgrade mill. I personally chose the first option and still have a better graphics experience than the consoles can offer but the entire upgrade cost me just 150 bucks 2 years ago.

New Consoles?

[lymond01]

So this article makes sense until the new consoles are out. Then they'll be back on par. It's like complaining about an extra cups of water at the finish line when there are still people running the race. "All this water...it's such a waste. What are we doing to do with it all? This is a catastro...oh. Here they are. We're good."

Upgrade every year? Not needed.

[dstyle5]

Hundreds of pounds every year? My 3.5 year old PC still plays games well enough and the only things I've done to it are add more fans and hard drives. If you are forced to upgrade every year you either bought a very cheap PC to begin with or are upgrading without reason. My PC is finally starting to strain under new games like Dragon Age 2, but my 8800GT and 6850 still get by well enough for most games. The need to upgrade ever year is a fallacy.

The benefit of consoles is stability

[HikingStick]

At least with a console, you know that any game you buy for it was written for it--for its processor and graphics engine. That includes when you find and old game for an old console. So long as the console labeling matches the system for which you're buying the game, you have a green light. With PCs, it's a different world.

Yes, even PCs go through various changes and generations, but games are sold for specific minimum system specifications. That means you need to match up numerous items:processor level, RAM, graphics capabilities, DirectX support. It's nowhere near as simple as knowing an XBox game is for XBox or that a GameCube game is still good on a GameCube. Also, console makers often try to make sure their current platform is backwards compatible with games from the prior platform, meaning those n-1 platform games may still be usable on the new console (e.g., GameCube games on the Wii).

That said, many PC games can be played on newer hardware, but it's more of a crap shoot. Windows OS changes can be the biggest roadblock to that type of backwards compatibility. Even with their "compatibility modes" feature, I've found that many older games will not run on later PC platforms.

Console platforms change every few years, while the PC platform is constantly evolving. As such, consoles provide a greater level of stability for the gamer. Yes, newer PCs will have better graphics, engines, and processors, but the same doom-and-gloom about consoles was everywhere before the last major concurrent releases by the big three (Xbox, PS3, Wii). At the time of the release, everyone was noting how the consoles were considerably better than the average PC gaming experience, but shortly before that release, people were talking about how the PC gaming platform had matured. Some even wondered if consoles were the dead man's market.

So, here we are again. The consoles are getting old and everyone is noticing how robust PCs are. If and when the console makers come to market with new units, it is likely that they will again be on the cutting edge, making PC gaming look pale by comparison. While the PC platform is moving ahead at a relatively steady pace, the console makers tend to play leap frog.

Extremely limited choices

[vlm]

we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games

As long as "blockbuster games" are defined as first person shooters and nothing else, probably forever.

You define gaming as playing FPS, and FPS only, buy a console.

You define gaming as FPS in addition to everything that isn't a FPS, buy a PC.

Its that simple.

Re:Extremely limited choices

[Nadaka]

FPS are not even very good on a console. Controls are sluggish and imprecise.

Re:Extremely limited choices

[spacepimp]

I would argue, that the FPS as a game style is best served up on a PC, or at least a computer with a mouse and keyboard. The control method of preference for most serious FPS players I have known is mouse+Keyboard. More accuracy, faster turning and response. Is there a well crafted shooter that allows for PC vs BOX or PS3 play? If so I would imagine it is deliberately handicapping the PC players to keep it competitive. Sports franchises are typically the shining gallery of Console gaming efficiency. I couldn't imagine Fight Night 4 on a PC working well.

Re:Extremely limited choices

[toriver]

Yes, because consoles don't have platformers, strategy games, casual games etc... FPSes constitute only a small part of the console game selection out there.

Re:Extremely limited choices

[GlobalEcho]

You define gaming as FPS in addition to everything that isn't a FPS, buy a PC.

Its that simple.

I disagree. I define gaming as rhythm games (Rock Band, Guitar Hero, dance games), driving games (GT), and some Mario. On a big plasma screen. And I am not unusual in this; those are all very popular categories for which a PC is more or less useless.

Re:Extremely limited choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait...I'm not sure that this post made sense. From reading previous posts, it was my understanding that the CONSOLE offered more versatility within gaming genres (not talking about controls).

So...thus...if you only want to play FPS games and Starcraft-type (strategy) games.....get a PC. Other than that, consoles are the way.
Once again, we're talking about systems that came out years ago. (The Xbox 360 was released on November 22, 2005, in the United States and Canada).

If comments must be made on the validity of one platform over the other, please use the same date/technology ratio. I'd like to hear the analysis at that point.

Re:Extremely limited choices

[somersault]

That's kind of funny, I thought PCs were still the realm of hardcore FPS players (of which I used to consider myself one). Consoles pretty much have every genre covered, apart from perhaps good MMORPGs and any decent space sims for some reason.. I'd enjoy a nice shiny free roaming space fighting/trading game on my PS3 :/

Waste of space

[Anonymous Coward]

After 1000 years of listening to the hype... bought a 360 w kinetic.

Still don't get it.

For excercise? Maybe. (but not my bag) For sports? (I'm one of those who'd rather watch paint dry)

Nice that it's a dvd player and I that I can stream video n' music from my server... but...

Still don't get it. There is no comparison when gaming. PC was, is and will remain king of the hill forever IMHO.

Only reason you'd buy one of these is for your kids so you can save money on getting them a real system. Or , if you think it's the cat's pajamas... you never had a, at least, "fairly" hot PC.

Hopefully more of the game makers will realize that starting with a PC release is the way to go. If it works (sales wise) on a PC, it'll work anywhere. If it doesn't... don't waste the money on porting it over.

And So the Cycle continues.

[Pirate_Pettit]

*Must* we go through this routine every three years?

Step 1: PC Games outperform consoles and offer more customization, but somewhat lower profit margins. Console market saturates. Industry Pundits declare PCs to be the future of gaming.
Step 2: New Generation of consoles is produced with the latest hardware, and exclusive titles, licenses, bells and whistles. Console market swells as gamers invest in the newest consoles, games, peripherals, AV Hardware.
Step 3: PC Gaming market declines as publishers reorient towards console hardware. Console hardware offers reliability and impressive visuals with less fuss to creators and consumers. PC Ports abound. Industry Pundits Declare PC Gaming is dead and consoles are the future.
Step 4: Time passes. New PC Hardware is produced and prices drop, while console hardware becomes increasingly obsolete. Publishers resume producing more PC oriented titles.
Step 5: go to Step 1.

Let's face it, neither market is going to muscle out the other. It all ebbs and wanes. Of course PCs are making the consoles look obsolete. they *are* obsolete, by industry standards. There's a second cycle re:software, wherein flashy superficial titles alternate with innovative, gripping titles depending on where you are in the console life cycle and calendar. And of course, there's legacy hardware and software on both platforms with dedicated fans. But this whole "Console gaming is outdated/PC Gaming is dead" tug-of-war is just boring. This is 7th generation, people. The only difference with these yearly articles is technical information and buzzwords.

What PC?

[CityZen]

Most PCs have graphics that suck (ie, integrated Intel GPU). I'd bet that the percentage of PCs with decent GPUs is but a small fraction of all PCs being used at home, and of course a small fraction of the number of consoles. Guess where the development will be?

Re:What PC?

[CronoCloud]

I "play" Second Life and there are a hell a lot of users running low end hardware. I know someone running it on a Single core P4 with an 852/855GME today. Heck until I got a GT220 at christmas I was running it on a dual core Athlon 240 with 3GB of RAM (funny enough most SLers consider that midlevel). Ton's of soccer mom's who only use their computers for facebook or SL that have 3 year old (or even older machines)....those people do the rest of their gaming on their 360's/PS3's or Wii's.

Re:What PC?

[CityZen]

But anything that would run on low-end PC hardware would probably run okay on today's consoles. The article was blathering about the highest-end PC graphics, which represents a market share of (insert very tiny number here).

Should speed development...

[Activist1984]

I worked in the game industry for 9 years and this does not surprise me at all. In fact I bet this will speed development of games, as trying to wedge content and code into the fixed limitations of a box eats up much time and resources.

Standards encourage quality

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be in the PC gaming world and had a lot of fun - when the games worked. Crysis was the nail in the coffin for me (along with a few other titles). Too much managing of the BIOS, video card updates, patches, etc. When you have all the recommended hardware for the game and it still crashes, there is a problem. I've now sworn off PC gaming and bought a console and am quite happy with my decision.

IYes, I still experience crashes and bugs on console games but at a significantly lower rate. The standard platform of consoles has allowed/encouraged a whole new realm of gaming (resurgence of arcade/lower quality graphics games, movement based gaming like Kinect/Wii/Move, etc). To their credit, the console makers have stretched this generation quite well. This realm of game development has also led the way into mobile game development.

In the end, it's a cycle: PC to break new ground & redefine, Console to standardize & connect with a different audience, Mobile to fill in all the other places where you can't game in the day.

Re:Standards encourage quality

[Ash-Fox]

I used to be in the PC gaming world and had a lot of fun - when the games worked. Crysis was the nail in the coffin for me (along with a few other titles). Too much managing of the BIOS, video card updates, patches, etc. When you have all the recommended hardware for the game and it still crashes, there is a problem. I've now sworn off PC gaming and bought a console and am quite happy with my decision.

Let me just put forward that I am in the PC gaming world and have a lot of fun. Games generally work fine for me and didn't require really any BIOS, video card updates. As for patches, Steam auto patches my games, so I don't really notice.

To summarise, I don't have the problems you're experiencing with PCs, I don't doubt you do, but just putting forward that this isn't something all PC gamers experience.

Re:Standards encourage quality

[Legion303]

Crysis ran fine on my ancient Inspiron 6400 laptop (in DX9 mode). My problem with it wasn't that it was glitchy or slow, my problem was that it was fucking boring.

They can make the Crytek engine look as pretty as they want, but until they make an engaging game with it, I'm not going to care.

Re:Standards encourage quality

[moppop]

This I agree with. Great looking game, but once you got past the novelty of the graphics and the nano-suit modes, it because really shallow. The story was not interesting, and the whole "uniqueness" of the aliens being associated with cold was only there to show up the shaders. It had no real impact in the game.

Anon Angry!

[Anonymous Coward]

Zomg more first person shooter engines for the PC. I r so amazed!!! Stop being retard fan bois and realize there are pros and cons to both.

If anyone is being shat on it is all of us consumers. Essentially if we want to remain avid gamers we need to buy a Wii, PC, (PS3 || Xbox360), and an NDS. There is no nice way to combine them all and never will be. For 70% of the games I play Xbox360 is cheaper, remains stable and up to date for its life cycle. This is unlike PC where if the GPU makers had it their way I'd buy a new $400 GPU every year. For that other 20% of games (mmos, rts, fps) the PC is a definite guarantee. For the remainder of crap it is on some mobile device.

If anyone wants to complain about our gaming world focus on crap $0.99 games that are flooding and belittling the whole gaming enterprise.

Depends

[HalAtWork]

Mouse & keyboard work perfectly fine on consoles. That being said, mouse & keyboard is fine for first person shooters and RTS games, but the precision of analog sticks in a platformer (for example, Mario Galaxy) or a hack & slash (like God of War) is more important, and even unreproducible with a mouse and keyboard. This argument is also pointless for games like Final Fantasy XIII or Dragon Quest IX. These games are all blockbusters, but really work better on a gamepad. But these are only input methods, and all systems are capable of supporting them, so the argument is moot.

Agreed

[HalAtWork]

I agree, I don't really care what the PC can do for games. Even if I play the same games, it's the console experience I enjoy. FPS, RTS and 'Western-style' RPG (I still enjoy some of these, they are just not my primary genres) are not really genres I care about either, so it matters even less to me. I would also just rather use a gamepad primarily, and this is pretty much the out-of-the-box experience with consoles.

I program all day ..

[HeavyAl]

.. and when I come home and want to 'zone out' in front of a video game I'm not really interested in making sure my system is up to snuff in order to play my favorite games so I pick up my 360's controller and go to town. Now don't get me wrong, I grew up playing PC games, I was around when Kings Quest was 'cutting edge' and migrated through Doom to Quake to UT, etc, etc - but these days the desktop computer (and even the laptop as so many of them are quite the gaming rigs these days) is not the set-it-and-forget-it experience it used to be. Heck, even back in the 80's we'd make all kinds of hardware tweaks just to get a game up and running and _that was part of the fun_! But I'm getting older now and when I want to game I want to get right to it and fiddling with my machine settings shouldn't be part of the equation. Now get off my lawn, etc, etc.

those are console engines

[citizenr]

>Epic's Unreal engine, Crytek's Cryengine 3, and DICE's Frostbite 2

those are ALL console engines

Re:those are console engines

[dstyle5]

According to DICE the PC is the lead platform for Battlefield 3, the first game to utilize Frostbite 2.0. Frostbite 2 was rewritten from the ground up for PC/PS3/360 so I can't see how it could considered a console engine, especially since it supports only DX10/11 and both 32/64 bit processors.

Check out "DirectX 11 Rendering in Battlefield 3" on DICE's publication page for some interesting info about their use of DX11 in FB2.0. http://publications.dice.se/

Re:those are console engines

[Cowmonaut]

Not entirely. The Cryengine in particular is first and foremost designed for the PC. Console support is in all 3 of them, but none of them were designed strictly for consoles like with some other game engines that just have a crappy PC port from the Xbox360.

Re:Consoles are out of date by definition

[DaveGod]

Am I missing something? Consoles have always lagged the availability of hardware in PCs.

Not really. Think about it in terms of demand rather than in absolute computing performance.

For starters, new consoles usually are faster at running games than a typical gaming PC at the time. Enthusiasts may have something faster but they're a niche while most games are mass-market. Ignoring outliers like Crysis techdemos it usually takes a couple of years for PC games to catch up. But this is still missing the point.

New consoles are plenty fast enough for by far the biggest market: the console gamers. Most of them have no idea what's going on in PC gaming, it's when console gamers start thinking that their console is aged that they might even start thinking of looking at PCs. Even then, many prefer playing from the couch, with a joypad, on XBL so much (and then there's the switching costs) that they would have to perceive the PC to be much better in other ways (which of course it is ;) ) to convince them to move over.

However I suspect the actual strategy of the developers is to keep them building up their tech. They can't stop moving forward and the PC is the only platform that allows them to keep doing so. Even if, perhaps, their main incentive is to be competitive when the next console gen arrives. IIRC the Xbox 720 or whatever is expected around 2015, so the big engine-sellers probably want to have an amazing techdemo out around 2012/13, when all the smaller devs start thinking about what engine they'll be licensing for it.

dunno

[WillyWanker]

I really don't understand why consoles haven't evolved into an Apple-esque closed-platform PC architecture. It seems like a much better way than having to create an entirely new proprietary system every 8-10 years that's horribly outdated after 4. Using off-the-shelf PC parts means little-to-no R&D, easier support, and hassle-free upgrading. You keep the upgrade parts to a very small approved list which keeps your Q&A costs low. Basically the same way Apple makes computers, except without the 500% markup and forced indoctrination into the Cult of Jobs.

So not only are you cutting development costs, but by selling official hardware upgrades you get to make some extra coin too.

Re:dunno

[grumbel]

Off-the-shelf parts are far more expensive then a custom build solution in the long run, as off-the-shelf parts don't go down in cost, they simply become faster instead. That experiment was after all already tried on the Xbox1, didn't turn out so well, the console was a bit more powerful, but also expensive and while Nintendo was selling its custom hardware Gamecube at $99 for profit, Microsoft was losing money while selling it at $200 or something like that, as they couldn't get the cost down.

Also user do not want to upgrade, that just complicates things and provides no practical benefit. With current day consoles you get a constantly improving experience, as developers manage to optimize their code ever tighter for the architecture, with an upgradeable system on the other side you have a constantly worsening experience, as developers don't bother to support the old stuff and just move on, thus forcing you to upgrade.

The only reason why PC gaming is quite tolerable these days is because the consoles provide a baseline that developers have to target, if it has to run on an Xbox360, chance are it will also run on your three year old PC.

They forgot one key element.

[Onuma]

Consoles just don't offer the same support for porn :P This is why the PS3/X360 isn't "everything you'll ever need for media".

Re:They forgot one key element.

[CronoCloud]

The PS3 is a Blu-Ray and DVD player. The PS3 and PSP have web browsers. There was at one time a PSP specific porn site out there. I, for one, welcome our console using porn overlords.

Does Minecraft need Dual SLI? 5M users say no.

[ArundelCastle]

The word from GDC that I heard from the industry people I follow is that "Minecraft" was something of a buzzword across genres, beyond just sweeping the indie awards. And that is the anti-example of graphics being necessary to a game's enjoyment, so once again I call bullshit on the pixel pushers. If graphics cards ceased to exist tomorrow (as is the case with most dedicated sound cards), developers would still find ways to make new games fun.

Minecraft needs a bit of graphical horsepower for its shaders and alpha not because it is terribly taxing on a system, but that Java is senile old hog. And despite my fandom for Markus and the Mojang team, one of the things made abundantly clear from his open air policy on development is that most major breakthroughs to the code come from fixing daft and bush league mistakes and old hacks, by his own admission.

This is the same reason Gears of War 3 and Gears of War 1 can be released on the same hardware with the same 512MB of memory. Code better with experience. Being able to upgrade the base hardware to be faster has been making software developers (such as Microsoft) lazy for DECADES!!!

Code. Better.

Re:Does Minecraft need Dual SLI? 5M users say no.

[Turnpike Lad]

I'd like to see a push to use the extra power of PCs for more than just better graphics. Minecraft is a great example of a game where the fun comes not from the way the game looks, but from the total interactivity of the gameworld. Sure, modern games let you wander through beautiful, expansive environments, but it seems like among many AAA titles there's less and less to do in those places - just a few preset interaction points which guide you down a linear story path. The sandbox games in the tradition of GTA make a few steps in the opposite direction, but the freedom in those games is mainly the freedom to go wherever you want and kill whomever you want: the world is still static.

I imagine a game where every object in the world has multiple possible options for interaction. Where you can walk through a lovely forest as seen in the Cryengine video in TFA, but know that you can pick any plant, cut down, prune or climb any tree, build structures, create crafts, cook food, etc. Currently the only games with this level of environment interaction are roguelikes like the Unreal World and Dwarf Fortress, Minecraft, and a couple online games (Wurm Online, Haven and Hearth), every one of which is a pet project of a single person. None of them have remotely close to the amount of resources available to an established development studio.

The idea of a game like this used to be simply wishful thinking, but as PCs get more powerful something along these lines seems a lot more possible. I also think this is a genre uniquely suited to the PC platform, as the console gamepad isn't very good at navigating a complex menu of possible interaction with the same object.

Re:Does Minecraft need Dual SLI? 5M users say no.

[Ash-Fox]

Minecraft needs a bit of graphical horsepower for its shaders and alpha not because it is terribly taxing on a system, but that Java is senile old hog.

I've had to write 3d simulations in Java that looked far better than minecraft and had far more complex meshes involved. It ran decently (about 40fps) on old windows XP systems running on a Geforce 4 with just 512MB of RAM, I doubt it would have ran much better if it was written in C++. It did not make use of JNI to escape the Java API.

Looking at the bottlenecks of where Minecraft loses performance on, it's problem is its implementation, not the runtime.

but not really "custom" either

[Chirs]

None of the cpus were designed specifically for gaming consoles, they were more adaptations of general purpose devices. They all have powerpc instructions sets.

What the OP is talking about is fully custom chips with instruction sets optimized for gaming.

The reality is that the cost of designing a current generation cpu/gpu is so high that they can't afford to do full-custom anymore. Almost everyone pulls something off the shelf and tweaks it slightly.

Re:but not really "custom" either

[greed]

Hmmm.

Sega Genesis: Motorola 68000
NES: Ricoh 2A03 (MOS 6502 core)
Atari 2600: MOS 6507 (MOS 6502 with only 8K addressing)

Sure, the video and sound hardware might have been somewhat "specialized". But contemporary personal computers had "specialized" sound and graphics. The VIC-20 was different from the Apple ][ was different from the Atari 400 was different from....

CPUs were pretty much always off-the-shelf. They just weren't off the IBM PC(r) shelf. Another example; the Hitachi SuperH CPUs of the Sega Saturn and 32X are also used in control systems.

Re:but not really "custom" either

[Narishma]

Well, no console has ever had it's own fully custom processor. It's always a derivative of a mainstream general purpose chip.

Re:Consoles are out of date by definition

[halofan_sd]

you don't need a high end $1000 PC, I just bought a Radeon 5770 graphics card for $100, DX11 compliant and has 1Gb of RAM! 4 times more than what's on PS3 and 360. you can't even buy a PC with 256MB of RAM anymore. so for $400 today you can build a PC that is significantly faster than current gen consoles, this wasn't true a year ago.

Gaming is changing (for the better?)

[Anonymous Coward]

We've reached the pinnacle of eye-candy graphics, and now gameplay is once again the most important factor in the success of a game. Minecraft has sold over 1.5 million copies at $15 per, using pixelated, not-optimized, boxy graphics that are in no way breathtaking. But the game is fucking fun... real unhindered, crazy fun and one man designed and programmed the entire thing (but only up till recently--Notch has a dev team now). No big time gaming studio can compete against that sort of business, and the indie game industry is literally rocketing off as we speak. In a few years time, Blizzard will still be surviving off of WoW, but all the other big names (EA being the poster child) are going to either go out of business or significantly change the kinds of games they release. I wouldn't be suprised if the Facebook gaming model becomes the typical model for big name game shops. Glorified, networked flash games meant to have 2-5 hours of playtime, and some amount of replayability or avatar progression.

Its just too expensive for a studio to spend all the time and money required to make an A-List, bleeding-edge game nowadays. Players can't afford spend $60 every other week on the next game, yet game studios are banking on huge returns as if every person that owns a console or PC will buy their new title. Games that should have been great (Spore, Civ V, Borderlands) are crippled by their makers to meet some arbitrary marketing deadline and budget. Features are pressed on developers when they know the players couldn't give a shit, but the guy that makes more money has more power, so you, as a developer trying to keep your job, must oblige (I call this "forced bitch syndrome," something that continuously plagues me). Games used to be a new and edgy form of art and expression. Now they are just another profit generation machine for faceless shareholders, much like pop music and tv.

The old model is going out, the new one is coming in. Fortunately the gaming industry doesn't have quite as much power in Washington as their tv and musical counterparts, so change can actually happen here. Also, the indie community will save all us gamers from the certain, bureaucratic doom that is American business practices. They'll either create enough competition, or take the entire cake (then, eventually, the cycle will continue...). Thank you Toady-One (Dwarf Fortress), Notch (Minecraft), the guys at Frictional (Penumbra series), and all the other obscure indie champions that are changing the way the world things about games. We owe you more than you receive.

Re:Gaming is changing (for the better?)

[Ash-Fox]

Minecraft has sold over 1.5 million copies at $15 per, using pixelated, not-optimized, boxy graphics that are in no way breathtaking.

Minecraft is the exception, not the rule.

The old model is going out, the new one is coming in.

I'm not really seeing a trend take place, honestly.

Check out steam sale pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get that same game for $10 when the timing is right.

I haven't upgraded my PC in a few years now. Still on a 8800 GTX video card and E8400 Intel CPU I believe.

Game companies are moving to where the money is

[Plekto]

Still, as the game companies become more and more invested in online play, (name a game that isn't multi-player these days) they look at the fact that a console is a dead end while the real money is in online PC gaming. WoW makes just stupid amounts of money. Second Life is absolutely loopy nuts with the revenue it creates. Not only is the hardware two generations better (PS3 is hell to program for, no two ways about it, and PCs have only two well-understood standards these days for video cards - the rest is plug and play simple), but the players will generally cough up monthly fees in addition to the game's price.

It's a little bit more work, but lots more potential money to be had. Faced with the PS3 and XBox 720(or whatever they call them) a couple of years or more away, it's no wonder that they're simply ignoring the consoles in larger and larger numbers.

I found this article online:
******
Grinding for gold
By Nick Farrell
Wed Sep 17 2008, 10:50
GAME MAKER BLIZZARD has revealed that its WoW network has cost it $200 million dollars to run over the last four years.

The outfit revealed during its Analyst Day conference call yesterday that the price has been over $200 million since the game launched in 2004 according to Kotaku. This figure does not include the cost to develop the game, but includes payroll for the entire staff, hardware support, and customer service. This is quite a high figure but hacks have got out their pencils and calculated that if WoW has only nine million subscribers who are paying $15 a month to play, and Blizzard claims there are 10 million, it is making $135 million every month in subscriptions. That means that Blizzard has run its entire operation for the last four years on two months worth of income. It is not so much milking a cash cow as milking a cash elephant.
****
Just because you see a GameStop or EB games or similar on nearly every major strip mall in America doesn't mean that PC games are dead. Far from it, in fact. The number as of this last holiday season is 12 million paying subscribers. That means that they make enough money in 10 days to pay for the entire year's upkeep.

Re:Game companies are moving to where the money is

[unapersson]

Just because you see a GameStop or EB games or similar on nearly every major strip mall in America doesn't mean that PC games are dead. Far from it, in fact. The number as of this last holiday season is 12 million paying subscribers. That means that they make enough money in 10 days to pay for the entire year's upkeep.

That's great if you're Blizzard, but what if you're trying to sell other non-subscription games? Or even an alternative subscription game? Those 12 million then become customers that are ignoring what you're putting out.

Re:Game companies are moving to where the money is

[Plekto]

If we're talking about online or multi-player games there is no other alternative than to offer the game for less money and make it up on modest subscription fees. Nothing else works at this point.

Microsoft and Sony have tried to monetize their consoles via their points and store systems, but it's largely failed. Most PC gamers, OTOH, will gladly pay a nominal $2-$5 a month to play on the official game servers (local and lan games of course are free). RPG type games are also better served with a nominal charge this way for items and upgrades. This is also compounded by the fact that all of the PC online games offer free or nearly free digital downloads as an option. $0 to start, 10 - 14 days free trial, and pay monthly if you want to continue.

Comparing this to $60 for a PS3 game and then hoping players buy stuff on the in-game store... The reason why they are leaving the console market is purely money at this point. Note - this has happened in the past several times as well as PC and Consoles swapped dominance in the marketplace.

Engine dev's interests != game dev's interests

[John Whitley]

The article includes three videos that give a fantastic insight into where PC graphics are headed, including a version of Epic's Unreal engine, Crytek's Cryengine 3, and DICE's Frostbite 2 engine. Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games.

This is nonsense. Engine developers have a vested interest in staying ahead of the curve and showing off their wares. The engines developed for PC gaming systems now can be viewed as advance R&D effort on the engines they'll license for future generation consoles and mobile devices. If the PC gaming market helps to cover that initial R&D investment, all the better.

Game developers, on the other hand, will go where the money is. Unless PC gaming takes an unprecedented upswing in market share, game devs will tend to stick with console and mobile platform development.

Graphics, shmaphics

[Benfea]

I think very soon we are going to reach a point where graphics are no longer the driving concern in game platforms. With each new generation of graphics technology, the percentage of development costs that must go towards artists (as opposed to designers, writers, voice actors, etc.) goes up. Eventually we have to hit the point where developers are simply unwilling to throw any more money at the art side of the budget than they already are.

I hope that time comes soon, because frankly I would love it if they put more of those budgets into hiring designers. No offense to artists, but the designers have more direct impact on gameplay.

PC's will always win

[Anonymous Coward]

In 20 years, I will not have a Wii, PS3 or XBox 360 hooked up to my TV anymore than I have an Atari 2600 or Colecovision hooked up to my TV today.

However, in 20 years on the PC I will have emulators for the Wii, PS3 and XBox 360 WITH entire libraries of games much like I have emulators with complete libraries for the Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, etc.

That is why the PC will always win the war.

introverts vs extroverts?

[Rooked_One]

I don't want to get too off topic, but could there be any relation between pc gamers being more introverted and console gamers being the exoverts?

There is nothing wrong with either one, or either way you play a game. For the most part (for the most part!!!) pc games are more strategy based and require analytical skills which tend to favor the introvert. You could say console games are more focused on the immediate. Be it football, golf, street fighter/tekken type, guitar hero, etc... all of these are things you do with other people.

Video games are a pastime to me and I greatly enjoy sharing almost all types (not sports except golf) with my friends.

The other weekend, I showed an EXTREMELY non-technical buddy Starcraft2. I told him it was a bit like chess, and you played against other people online, and the average game time is about 15 minutes. He watched a game, and (as he is intelligent) noted when I did something key in the battle. At the end he was as pumped up as when his favorite football team wins. He even wanted to watch me play a second one. He is very extroverted and hardly will touch a PC. Posting a craigslist article is something he is afraid of. He also loves console games.

Starcraft2 players read forth....

I would do little commentaries on my play as the game progressed... Here is probably some banter that occurred....

"OH SHIT!!! I hate when zerg 6 pools. Ok, so what I need to do is go all in zealots and i'll win. Simple concept." I explained one zealot can kill multiple zerglings and since he was going an "all in" if I made sure to one up his all in, I would win. Yes, i'm a leisurely player and a bronzie.

Re:introverts vs extroverts?

[mcvos]

I don't want to get too off topic, but could there be any relation between pc gamers being more introverted and console gamers being the exoverts?

There is nothing wrong with either one, or either way you play a game. For the most part (for the most part!!!) pc games are more strategy based and require analytical skills which tend to favor the introvert. You could say console games are more focused on the immediate. Be it football, golf, street fighter/tekken type, guitar hero, etc... all of these are things you do with other people.

Sounds very plausible. I like games that engage my mind and imagination. I don't care much about action or party games. And yes, I vastly prefer PC gaming for the simple reason that the kind of games there are much more to my taste.

Re:introverts vs extroverts?

[Cowmonaut]

Correlation is not causation, etc. Console games don't take "special skills" (in the eyes of the public) to setup and play. As such there is a larger variety of people that play various console games (think frat boys playing HALO/CoD). Stereotypes being what they are, its natural to perceive that more PC gamers (discounting WoW players largely) are introverts rather than extroverts.

Oh and protip: your counter for 6pool doesn't actually work. Being attacked by 6 Zerglings is not 6pool. Having 6 workers then dropping a Spawning Pool is what 6pool is all about. As Terran you should be walled off and have 1 Marine either almost out or already out by the time they get to you. As Protoss or Zerg you will have to micromanage your workers in order to destroy the Zerglings before they can cause too much damage. You can't get enough Zealots out to make a difference (requires 3 Zealots) before they hit you unless they aren't really doing a 6pool.

Also, what you really need to worry about is 6-8 Roaches hitting you hard early on. From my experience in Platinum, Protoss tends to have 1 Zealot out when I hit them and with micromanagement they have to send their probes to try to stop me from finishing them. They'll lose over half their probes and waste a lot of time fighting the Roaches off and may not even kill them all but the damage will be done. Honestly I think you'd have to be damn near perfect with your Sentry usage to stop it.

Food for thought.

Evidently consoles will be here for a long time

[Dcnjoe60]

While this article talks about how consoles are getting stale and developers are looking towards PCs because of better graphics, the actual PC manufactures are all stripping down their offerings so they can claim they are cloud computing, etc. If things like HTML5 become the next great thing, that will further erode what today is considered the PC desktop and laptop markets.

Consoles killed the pc game market and now it appears that all of these web OSs (iOS, Android, etc.) are trying to finish of the pc platform all together. As arm chips start replacing more and more intel processors in PCs, consoles will be the only serious game platform left. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft know this and that's why they haven't come up with anything new platform wise.

Re:Evidently consoles will be here for a long time

[mcvos]

If things like HTML5 become the next great thing, that will further erode what today is considered the PC desktop and laptop markets.

How so? Don't most people use desktops and laptops to access HTML5 stuff?

Consoles killed the pc game market

They didn't. The PC game market is very much alive. Many companies are thriving there. The biggest are raking in billions.

and now it appears that all of these web OSs (iOS, Android, etc.) are trying to finish of the pc platform all together. As arm chips start replacing more and more intel processors in PCs, consoles will be the only serious game platform left.

You're not making any sense here. Are ARM chips in PCs bad for gaming because ARM chips can't handle games? Or are iOS and Android (that tend to run on ARM processors) killing PC gaming because they are good at games?

Either way you're wrong. ARM processors are perfectly capable of running games, and mobile platforms are a very interesting new gaming market. But they have very little to do with PC gaming. Considering their casual nature, they're a bigger threat to consoles, if they're a threat at all. But I just think it's another cool new market, and that's a good thing.

Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft know this and that's why they haven't come up with anything new platform wise.

That also makes no sense. Why would they not come up with a new platform, when there's clearly a demand for higher graphics capacity (which PCs offer), while consoles are, as you suggest, able to defeat PCs? Here's what I think: they're not able to defeat PCs, and have dug themselves into quite an expensive hole fighting each other. Now they need money to get out of there, and releasing a new platform would only cost them more money. Meanwhile iOS/Android are threatening the DS/PSP market, so that requires their attention. In the mean time, PC gaming will continue to thrive.

Re:Evidently consoles will be here for a long time

[Dcnjoe60]

If things like HTML5 become the next great thing, that will further erode what today is considered the PC desktop and laptop markets.

How so? Don't most people use desktops and laptops to access HTML5 stuff?

Consoles killed the pc game market

They didn't. The PC game market is very much alive. Many companies are thriving there. The biggest are raking in billions.

and now it appears that all of these web OSs (iOS, Android, etc.) are trying to finish of the pc platform all together. As arm chips start replacing more and more intel processors in PCs, consoles will be the only serious game platform left.

You're not making any sense here. Are ARM chips in PCs bad for gaming because ARM chips can't handle games? Or are iOS and Android (that tend to run on ARM processors) killing PC gaming because they are good at games?

Either way you're wrong. ARM processors are perfectly capable of running games, and mobile platforms are a very interesting new gaming market. But they have very little to do with PC gaming. Considering their casual nature, they're a bigger threat to consoles, if they're a threat at all. But I just think it's another cool new market, and that's a good thing.

Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft know this and that's why they haven't come up with anything new platform wise.

That also makes no sense. Why would they not come up with a new platform, when there's clearly a demand for higher graphics capacity (which PCs offer), while consoles are, as you suggest, able to defeat PCs? Here's what I think: they're not able to defeat PCs, and have dug themselves into quite an expensive hole fighting each other. Now they need money to get out of there, and releasing a new platform would only cost them more money. Meanwhile iOS/Android are threatening the DS/PSP market, so that requires their attention. In the mean time, PC gaming will continue to thrive.

I agree that the Arm architecture does not prohibit games. But, the Arm processors being stuck in the current trend of laptops and pads don't have the horsepower required to run the games the original post was about. Besides, Arm is a low cost, low power alternative to intel's chips. It doesn't make sense to put a high end graphics card in such a computer. Put differently, why would anybody put a $400+ graphics card in a $200 computer designed for surfing the internet? Even if the card met the requirements for the new games, does the rest of the system (ie. dma, bus width/speed, etc.)

Companies may be making billions of PC games, but then they must not be reporting it on taxes. At $50/game, they would need to sell 20 million copies to make just 1 billion. Don't get me wrong, I think the PC can be a fine game platform, even superior in many ways to the current consoles. However, it is a niche market compared to all of the consoles out there. Put differently, why are their relatively few games for iOS compared to Windows? It's not be cause of the technology, it's marketing and market share. If I can sell more games for the PS3 because a) people already have one and b) they don't have to upgrade anything to play the game, then that's what I'm going to develop for.

Microsoft could have released the kinex for the pc market. They chose the console, instead? I'm sure they analyzed both markets and the XBox 360 was the better choice financially.

It wasn't too long ago (prior to the PS3/XBox360) that to play the newest game on a PC, you had to also have the latest video card -- and the card you purchased last fall wasn't powerful enough to play the game you wanted this spring. For PCs to become a viable game platform, they have to pick on a standard and not keep moving the envelope. Microsoft did that with the XBox 360. When it came out it was equivelant to what was available in a high end PC. Now, a few years later, it's not, but game developers keep deve

Re:Evidently consoles will be here for a long time

[mcvos]

I agree that the Arm architecture does not prohibit games. But, the Arm processors being stuck in the current trend of laptops and pads don't have the horsepower required to run the games the original post was about. Besides, Arm is a low cost, low power alternative to intel's chips. It doesn't make sense to put a high end graphics card in such a computer. Put differently, why would anybody put a $400+ graphics card in a $200 computer designed for surfing the internet? Even if the card met the requirements for the new games, does the rest of the system (ie. dma, bus width/speed, etc.)

Then why do you think iOS and Android are about to finish off the PC? That was a pretty bizarre claim, you'll have to admit.

Companies may be making billions of PC games, but then they must not be reporting it on taxes. At $50/game, they would need to sell 20 million copies to make just 1 billion.

I believe there's over 10 million people paying $120 a year to play WoW. That adds up to over a billion a year for a single PC game.

Don't get me wrong, I think the PC can be a fine game platform, even superior in many ways to the current consoles. However, it is a niche market compared to all of the consoles out there.

Only in comparison. PC gaming is still huge in comparison to what it once was. Maybe consoles are growing faster (especially the Wii that reached a completely new audience), but that doesn't mean PC gaming is shrinking. It's not a zero sum game.

Put differently, why are their relatively few games for iOS compared to Windows?

It's a much younger platform. Still, there are quite a lot of games for iOS. Mostly small, casual games, rather than the huge hardcore games that favour the PC, but that's because different platforms are suited to different kinds of games.

It's not be cause of the technology, it's marketing and market share. If I can sell more games for the PS3 because a) people already have one and b) they don't have to upgrade anything to play the game, then that's what I'm going to develop for.

And that's exactly why a lot of companies develop for PCs. More people have a PC than a PS3.

Microsoft could have released the kinex for the pc market. They chose the console, instead? I'm sure they analyzed both markets and the XBox 360 was the better choice financially.

Kinect is also coming to the PC, though.

It wasn't too long ago (prior to the PS3/XBox360) that to play the newest game on a PC, you had to also have the latest video card -- and the card you purchased last fall wasn't powerful enough to play the game you wanted this spring.

I don't think there was ever truly such a time. Yes, to play the latest high-end shooter at the highest setting, you need a pretty expensive video card. But most games do not aim for that (rather limited) niche in the PC market, and even those that do, tend to be playable at lower settings too.

I agree that in the past PCs have had plenty of compatibility issues due to non-standard hardware. Some video cards were badly supported, and I remember the DOS days that had several different extended memory standards. But still games thrived on PCs. Because they're powerful, versatile, and everybody had one.

For PCs to become a viable game platform,

It already is, and has been for decades.

Likewise, what consumer is going to want to spend $400 on a graphic card for their PC when they can buy the whole console and a game or two for that price?

Why would you want to spend $400 on a video card when you can buy an excellent video card for $150? People who pay $400 for a video card are people for whom money is not the issue; having the best possible graphics is. And for those people, a 5 year old console doesn't cut it.

The problem with PC gaming...

[AeonEchelon]

Is that you need to have an amazingly expensive and up-to-date system to play the best games without crashing. With consoles, everyone has the same software and hardware, so you don't need to worry about compatibility. Also, the good games aren't available for Linux and Mac users, alienating maybe half of the potential PC gamers.

Re:The problem with PC gaming...

[archivis]

My OS X steam install says otherwise.

Re:The problem with PC gaming...

[Ash-Fox]

Is that you need to have an amazingly expensive and up-to-date system to play the best games without crashing.

I've been playing dragon age 2 on a netbook (and my main PC) and that just came out...

Re:Upgrade every year? Not needed.

[karnal]

Amen. A co-worker gave me a q6600 and a 280gtx since he was upgrading his to the latest sandy-bridge whatever that Intel has. For free. That's a nice upgrade from an e6400 and an 8800gt.....

I remember when /. wasn't full of this kinda crap

[kfsone]

Has it just been slow news this year that these kind of likely-to-be-redacted-in-a-few-days threads are making the front page so frequently lately?

Developing high-end PC games generally incorporates the risks of having to develop your own custom tool chain along with the costs of having to target what is effectively a whole suite of disparate platforms: Intel/AMD, nVidia/ATI/Intel, 1024x768 thru tripple head, random quantities of RAM and disk performance. And every time a fancy new tech comes along, each PC game developer winds up having to develop their own custom tools for them until their mainline dev tools catch up. And users are going to want to turn tech on and off to suite their specific unique snowflake of a PC. Now you have to make sure your colliders work with/without shadows, bump mapping, cuda, etc, etc... And your eye-candy has to try and still look good in 1024 different video/effects combinations to claim your market price.

I half suspect it won't be too long before we start seeing "home" and "premium" style flavors of the same games.

And all of that tool-chain development is often only good for the specific product/franchise, with its specific creativity demands.

It's both a good and a bad thing. The bad part is that unless the developer can source willing to make a high-risk, high-stake investment, then the underlying game might be insufficient to attract players: The most epic eye-candy will ultimately only cover so much absence of actual game. The same gamers that want their overclocked, watercooled, i9 12 core 6Ghz CPU with tripple sli geforce 600 series cards to set fire to the watercooling when they play the game, ultimately want a game that is at least as appealing gameplay-wise as Wolfenstein.

Conversely, the stable platform that consoles offer presents game-developers with a much better opportunity to access existing, well rounded tool chains and middleware; spend less time on training and ancillary development and support, and focus on content and gameplay creation.

It's also a hell of a lot easier to prototype and demo your game - which is ultimately the most important part of both developing and pitching your product. When you're creating a bleeding-edge PC game, you have to jump in at the deep end, which means getting a real sense of what the product may look like is going to be a large-downpayment affair.

This divide has been here since the first computer games, since the days of the "home computer" vs the "PC" and etc.

It's not going to go away. PCs are to gaming what speed-record cars with rocket engines are to driving: The investment, risk, hazard and degree of technical competence and inconvenience are well beyond the true "massive" market, but allows for brief glimpses of magnificent engineering and advancement that will ultimately trickle down to the mundane sports SUV that the broader consumer market will ultimately benefit from.

Console lack of personalization

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a PC gamer who just bought an xbox. Personalizing a game settings on in console games is extremely limited, which I really dislike. My console game experience feels very different and is indeed targetted to casual play.

Driver hell is still a barrier

[Computershack]

Despite DirectX supposedly bringing an end to driver hell, we still have the same situation that we had a decade ago. Every new release of a nVidia or AMD/ATI driver fixes some glitch or other they have with a game. I got sick to fucking death of games that crashed to desktop or something else and wasting hours of my life trying to figure out which of the many bits of hardware was the problem or if it was the game itself. And then when you got it going, you then found some little shite had a hack that crashed everyone on the server to desktop (Battlefield 2 anyone??). I just got sick of it all.

Re:Driver hell is still a barrier

[moppop]

As opposed to firmware updates that brick the console? Things break and the updates that are suppose to fix the broken issues may break something else. That goes way beyond PC gaming. That said, I'm glad you're gone, as it's one less incompetent imbecile that posts on the forums about how it's always someone else's fault (when, in fact, the problem is between the keyboard and chair).

Console Gaming will die when...

[Anonymous Coward]

every single TV you can buy comes with a PC processor and graphics card. Then there will still be the Gaming Operating System wars that will last a couple of decades too...

Re:Console Gaming will die when...

[polyp2000]

That will never happen , especially if Microsoft have anything to do with it.

It would cost less than $1000

[elucido]

SSD only costs $200 and by that time might cost even less.
64 gigs of ram would only cost $100 or less.
Arm CPU is among the cheapest even if it's custom designed.
The video card would cost $100-200.

Someone made a point that Arm might not be powerful enough. That may be the place where the price point goes up.

I'd expect the system to cost $800.

Re:It would cost less than $1000

[billcopc]

In what bizarro reality does 64 gig of Ram cost $100 or less ? Maybe in 5 years, but right now 64 gigs of even the cheapest stuff is worth about $1000.

Nevermind that today's games barely know what to do with 512mb of Ram, the rest goes to caching. You're not going to see anything revolutionary until developers' brains get around to it. The hardware isn't so much the issue as the software. Having all that power available does not mean we have the slightest clue how to use it.

Other nice PC things

[Anonymous Coward]

A few more nice things about gaming on PCs...

-Usually, the deals on games are a bit better than on consoles. Steam often has 1-2 year old games on sale for less than $20.
-Better digital distribution platforms. I'm a lazy man and sometimes I can't be bothered to go to the store to pick up a retail copy of a game. I know that on modern consoles, there are also digital distribution systems, but PS3 and Xbox aren't really equipped well to deal with them (expensive hard drives, difficult to transfer games to different consoles, comparatively expensive prices etc.).
-In certain ways, it's a cheaper proposition. The reason for this is that most people probably already own a PC. If you've got a reasonably new computer, the only thing you really need to turn it into a gaming platform is to spend ~$100 on a reasonably nice video card. Also, if you're buying a console and don't have a nice TV, you might end up spending a bunch more money on that too.

i wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

do the people that say that gaming pcs are more expensive than consoles not realize that the consoles' price is totally subsidized via licensing fees?

Gameplay Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

I will take a game that has better gameplay, characters, and story, than a game that is purely eye candy any day.

Flamebait?

[souravzzz]

The entire article is one... Did not find any argument that has not already been used some 1000 times...

ahh

[marblesbot]

I have not read any other comments. Nor will I. Isn't this what happens with every console? Game makers cater to the "console du jour" market for a few years because it is a bigger market. Then it gets stale. So then they turn toward the PC market. Which then reinvents itself (and almost completely impossible to keep up with during this phase). And the PC graphic revolution always sparks the next console idea. Although, Nintendo almost screwed this cycle up with the release of the Wii. People didn't care about the poor graphics on the Wii, they were having fun. They got retirement homes to host Wii bowling tournaments!

Best of both worlds

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll admit, sometimes sitting on the couch and playing a game is great. I do this from time to time, and while I do own a 360, it's sitting on a shelf collecting dust. I have (I think) 3 games for it, and of those the only one I've finished is Halo 3.

Most of the time I just use a PC hooked up to the TV. With a wireless 360 controller, which I've configured to work as a mouse and remapped a couple of the buttons to perform standard Windows desktop commands, I can play anything I'd play on a console with the same controls in full 1080p on high settings.

It's also my DVR, Blu-Ray, and DVD player. With SageTV, a tuner card, and an IR remote, it works about as well as any stand-alone device would for these purposes (in the case of being a DVR, I'd like to see any stand-alone device that comes with 6TB of internal storage for all those episodes of Law and Order I have lying around).

It would seem that Sony built a device that tried to "only do everything" and failed, but the great thing about a PC is that you can configure its hardware and software to do EXACTLY what you want, without the need for any hacking, unlocking, lawsuits, and the like.

Re:Consoles are out of date by definition

[Anonymous Coward]

A substantial amount of PS3 developers have done hand-written assembly for the SPU, or least have a very very fine knowledge about how their code is compiled. There is a presentation here about a major game engine which mentins SPA (SPU assembly) in the end: http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/spubased-deferred-shading-in-battlefield-3-for-playstation-3

Where is the money ?

[polyp2000]

As Nintendo , iOS and Android have shown you dont need state of the art graphics or control mechanisms to convince punters to part with their hard earned cash.

PS3 and 360 have a catalogue of visually impressive games surpassed only by a fairly expensive PC.

As a Geek and a Gamer ill stick with my console thanks purchasing a new console every so many years is much perfered to buying a new graphics card (+Other upgrades) every 6 months just to keep up with the goalposts. Also I dont want to put myself through the constant driver updates and security patches of having Windows running the show.

I keep my gaming to my console and my computing to my linux boxes - that works best for me.

That said , the current debacle with Sony and the PS3 and the various Public relations nightmares with the 360. I cant help but think we need another player here thats taking a better attitude on how to give customers what they want. Everyone seems to be evil these days.

N

Re:Consoles are out of date by definition

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth pointing out that both the PS3's and X360's GPU were outclassed by the best PC GPUs at launch.

PC GPUs have had 5 years to get better and better since then.

But it's not relevant to the industry as a whole. It just says that Sony & MS could now come out with a new console. This is likely to be an OTS GPU like the last batch, combined with whatever the massively parallel processing system du jour happens to be (Larrabee still looks possible).

But neither are rushing to do that because suddenly a huge proportion of game revenues are on iPhone and Facebook.

zzzzz

[Anonymous Coward]

this is asinine post, i built my PC in 2006 it was a Core 2 Quad Q6600 + 8800 GTS 640mb i eventually about 1.5 years ago grabbed another 8800gts 640 for $30 there isnt a single game i cant play maxed in DX10, my other PC a Phenom II 940BE 4gigs Ram and 4870x2 i bought in 2007 still maxes every game today, without issue, at 1920x1200 total cost for both PCs $1000 to build it myself id say the simple fact is games now on PC at there lowest settings = console game good examples of this would be Metro 2033, at the lowest settings on PC almost any PC since 2006 can run it with ease, and looks the same and runs at higher resolution,

the fact is PS4 got SHELVED by sony, 360 wont be replaced till 2014. its not a 5 year cycle anymore its nearly 10 years.

My newest PC which was for fun and games to built is a SandyBridge i5 2500k 8gigs ram 2x 6970s cost me $1500 to build, i wont need to bother upgrading this PC for 3-4 years. the problem is you equate Sheeple that are to stupid to research something and just buy it cause of marketing gimmicks to those that do know something about it.

a $1000 Dell HP Acer etc usually comes with 6-8gigs ram a core i7 920 and a 5450 or gt 220 or some other asinine weak and pathetic gpu. I pay the extra for a premium experience. and i will gladly continue to do so, Battlefield 3 24players console 64 on PC this fall, with DX11 from the get go and no windows XP support, i get dedicated servers with many blockbuster titles i get full modding capabilities, Oblivion Fallout 3 Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Age, and many more titles i can add new user created content that beats out the shitty DLC developers pump out, before they even patch or fix games. In general PC gaming isnt nearly as expensive as people think it is, just like most people today in society there to lazy to research learn and do something for themselves. Also if i gamed at the same resolution as consoles, 1000x600 even the OEM crap can run games, Games dont even hardly run 720p let alone 1080p, its 1000x600 up scaled, Consoles are great for the mass market, but as a consumer i demand far more, im not content with shitty games, look at DAII they cut out everything of value simplified it, and made it into Mass Effect if i wanted Mass Effect id go play it. I cant stand FPS on console analog sticks dont it cut it for aiming, nor can a controller allow me proper control in RTS titles, In RPGs i get mods and extra content for free. In general PC gaming is more expensive but i get more out of it for my money, and im sorry but steam sales rape console game prices,

Darksiders $7, Mafia II with all DLC $10, Left 4 Dead 1+2 $10, Battlefield Bad Company 2 $6.79, hell bought multiple packs of games and entire developer catalogs overall i spent $200 in games during the Holiday sales, to buy the same games used or to get full version with all the extra crap would have cost me closer to $600 on a console, In general i make up the difference in the cost of hardware with game sales, because i dont need to own a game the first week its out,

look at DA:O $50 games $40 for the expansion and all DLC was $40 as well $130 for the entire game experience if you bought everything as it came out, i waited 1 year got everything for $24, Consoles are great but the entire argument of cheaper over time is so utterly full of shit its not even funny. The problem is most consumers have the attention span of a 5yr old with tourettes syndrome that cant play a game more then 10 mins unless they get a reward or trophy otherwise there bored. In general its my feeling Console generation with the xbox 360 and ps3 has resulted in a massive influx of dumbed down and lacking games, with there length getting gutted, we have gone backwards in time consoles have resulted in a simplification of games in general not to mention games are so god damn easy these days, that theres no challange, ive actually had to go back to old school games, to feel like ive accomplished something in the game world, In general Ill take a PC any day,

emulation from nes a

if you have the high HIGH end pc, yes..

[SuperDre]

Well, his statement is true when if everybody has the latest and the best PC available now with like triple SLI using the best videocards.. but in all the years I had a highend PC I never ever saw it producing images as shown on conventions/trailers, even when the games got older and I got a new PC.. A regular gaming PC (at this moment) is a bit better as curent consoles, but given the price of a console and the 'fixed' hardware in it you mostly can't beat the 'plug-and-play' experience of a console, and not having to upgrade.. With the next consoles (if there will be any) you will see those surpase the semi-highend pc's of that time, but for less bucks, just like in the past..

Who wants to be a supermodel?

[Internetuser1248]

As long as eye candy is the yardstick upon which all progress is measured I will have no interest in any debate about where and how progress is being made. It feels like marrying a woman because of her bra size, or buying a car because you like the colour of the paint, or voting for a politician because he has a nice smile. PC's make consoles look obsolete because there are tangible advances in gameplay and in the art's of storytelling and depth of content. PC's have always made consoles look obsolete in my eyes, and due to the nature of the technology consoles are unlikely to ever catch up. Another area where consoles are always lacking is modding and customisation of games. Consoles are to PC's what internet porn is to real sex, it may look prettier sometimes, it may be easier to use, it may be more accessible to children, but it will never beat the real thing.

flame bait

[gregarine]

OP is trying to start another Console/PC flame war and that bores me. Consoles will get games as long as the majority of games sales are for consoles. Who cares about eye candy? I want more involved games rather than same shooter re-skinned over and over with higher resolution textures. I want the next Mechwarrior or Chromehounds. The next MMO that supersedes WoW. They don't have to look better. They just have to be more interesting.

THE DAY IS COMMING ..again

[Anonymous Coward]

Consoles have had there moment, and perhaps created a new batch of gamers looking for some real gameplay!

Battlefield 3 is almost here, better start building that new rig.

PC game graphics network-rendering?

[h00manist]

I was noting Onlive managed to get game graphics rendered remotely. It seems PC games graphics could benefit from being often networked on location and using network render. Would help make more games playable, and more computers enabled to play. If Onlive can make it work over the Internet, over LAN would seem to be even better, given there were capable workstation on the LAN.

It isn't really about the hardware capabilities...

[Sedated2000]

For me the first PC game I have played in a long time is Minecraft. It's the first time for a while that I have sat down at my desk and played for any real length of time. I love that game and get a lot out of it. Still, why did I ever switch to more console gaming? It's comfortable. I am on my comfy couch with a cold drink and my arms and hands comfortably resting on my lap with the controller, which I don't need to look down at to find a button or check my hand placement. If I am playing a game and driving a car (say GTA) then I can gently squeeze the trigger on my 360 controller and it slowly starts to cruise down the road. On PC it's like an epileptic robbing a bank. All gas or all brake. Sure I can get the MS controller which is identical to the Xbox controller, but then that takes away the "benefit" of the keyboard and mouse control. Some games just need a computer. They need more access to the controls and fit a keyboard and mouse well. Most of the games I enjoy just don't. I think even Minecraft would be more fun on a console. Just my two cents though.

it's all about precision and speed

[NetMagi]

I strongly agree here regarding speed and precise control in a fast-paced FPS. If you're a casual gamer, the difference won't matter, but if you're a seasoned, skilled competitor. . it will. The level of speed and precision available is simply higher. I've been playing FPS games on PC since ~95, and I usually play the *same game* for ~3 years. I play for ~7 hours a week on avg. (since 95) If you see you, you're dead. I'd say I'm near instantly on target over 90% of the time with the very first shot I fire. At the higher levels of gameplay, winning or losing is about predicting your target(s) behavior and staying REALLY attentive. Crazy-high levels of accuracy and speed and more like a pre-requisite. Without them, it's not a fair fight. If you still think it is, find the auto-aim feature in your console game and turn it off (if it lets you).

Enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Just hope he gets to "leap" of that Enterprise ship? I keep asking myself "When is Ziggy going to show up and tell him how to get off that ship?"

The Cycle

[CougMerrik]

I guess we're on that part of the cycle now. I think a few years ago PC gaming was dead. Pretty sure that a while before that, console gaming was dead (before the last time PC gaming was dead).

In the end some people like having general purpose gaming systems, some people like having dedicated gaming systems, and some people like both. The next generation of consoles will have capabilities that your PC won't, until they do, albeit at a much higher cost of entry. The consoles are out of date.. hell, they've been out of date for a couple of years, and in the Wii's case, the graphics have been out of date since it launched.

Re:It isn't really about the hardware capabilities

[moppop]

Sir, I would like to introduce you to either the VGA and3.5mm audio cable bundle or the HDMI cable. These two amazing products will allow your PC to connect to a large TV so you can, in-fact, sit on the couch. Now, I'll toss in a multimedia center keyboard w/ mouse, and you got yourself one lazy PC gaming experience.