How the PC Is Making Consoles Look Out of Date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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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]

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: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.

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: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.

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: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: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

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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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.