How the PC Is Making Consoles Look Out of Date

Not only graphics by devxo · 2011-03-09 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by somersault · 2011-03-09 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Not only graphics by rainmouse · 2011-03-09 07:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by causality · 2011-03-09 07:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Not only graphics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-09 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by bberens · 2011-03-09 08:32 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Re:Not only graphics by dc29A · 2011-03-09 08:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by DavidTC · 2011-03-09 11:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Said many times by Anrego · 2011-03-09 07:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by account_deleted · 2011-03-09 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware. by Idimmu+Xul · 2011-03-09 07:18 · Score: 5, Informative

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!

--
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware. by click2005 · 2011-03-09 07:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.

Consoles as Target Platforms by Sonny+Yatsen · 2011-03-09 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.

Popularity by Arctech · 2011-03-09 07:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by alen · 2011-03-09 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Until.... by h4rr4r · 2011-03-09 07:32 · Score: 5, Informative

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:Consoles need to invest more on hardware. by Hatta · 2011-03-09 07:43 · Score: 5, Funny

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

You mean the smallest possible change?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Until.... by gknoy · 2011-03-09 07:49 · Score: 3, Funny

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

The same old song since 1974... by LordStormes · 2011-03-09 08:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

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... by LordStormes · 2011-03-09 08:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Upgrade every year? Not needed. by dstyle5 · 2011-03-09 08:07 · Score: 5, Informative

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. by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-03-09 08:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."

Re:Consoles need to invest more on hardware. by Urza9814 · 2011-03-09 08:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

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. by jeffmeden · 2011-03-09 09:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

How the PC Is Making Consoles Look Out of Date

24 of 568 comments (clear)