Slashdot Mirror
Game Consoles Expected to Tromp PCs
m3000 writes "Computer game consoles are predicted to increase their sales while computer game software sales are expected to go down, according to this article. I'm not suprised, as consoles are much easier to use than PCs. "
And rapidly growing in power, too. In a few years, will there really be much difference between a "game machine" and a "home" computer?
I don't think things would go either way... PCs will always have a niche, game consoles cannot overtake PCs without sacrificing nearly all of their advantages. I see Dreamcast as crossing that line. It may be succesful, but I certainly don't like the idea of an OS like WindowsCE running my game console, and I don't want my game console to be able to do the web and email and the like.
What do I like about a game console? Well, I just put in the cartridge/cd, press the power button, and there's the game. No waiting for the system to set up extraneous stuff while booting up, making for fast boots. No need to find out what upgrades the console needs, if it is for the console, it simply works. As far as prices go, consoles are still somewhat cheaper, but that gap seems to be closing...
What do I like about PCs? The flexibility. For general applications, it's nice to have a modular design, being able to choose my OS and have freedom to hack on things. The high resolution is great for multiasking things... Also nice for games, though low-res games on the TV look far better than low-res on monitors, we all have to admit that... Of course, the newest consoles don't look good on TVs anymore... But in any case, the consoles will always have a place for people who want quick, simple game-playing, and the PC will always have a place with people who want general-purpose stuff and hacking stuff..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Computers are getting cheaper, game consoles... aren't. At least now some of the best games are coming out for the PC, but consoles generally last longer than gaming PC's and are cheaper. Hey, gaming PC's can be expensive if you want the latest and greatest of everything. I don't mind being 18 months behind the cutting edge, but I miss all the new games...
:)
However, to play a lot of old console system games and arcade games, nothing beats a real computer.
Oh, and yo new comment-posting dude, fill out the dept. field, will ya? That's one of my favorite parts. (like "from the Mmm... Playstation II dept." or the "crunchy with milk dept." or whatever. "From the dept." sounds a little too staid and dry around here...) Okay, end of nit-picking.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Aah, but with the new USB ports on the PSII, we now *can* have a keyboard! :-)
One of the reasons why console games are less buggy and more stable than PC games is because there's no chance to patch the game once it's released -- a buggy, unstable game is an unsaleable game.
But with consoles like the Dreamcast that connect to the internet, console developers will find out how tempting it is to 'release the game now, post a patch on the net later'.
Console games will become much buggier.
That isn't even true. The PSX2 doesn't use Lynux. That was just a rumor which was denied by Sony. The only thing that it uses Lynux for is one version of the developement tools. Most consoles don't use PC OSs to run games because it slows down the game. Instead a specialized OS is made to run the game and nothing else.
| On my friend's PS (he's going to get a DC soon)
;)
| I see way too many "Virtua-Tekken-Mortal-Street
| Figter Beta Gamma V Gold edition" clones [snip]
| I also see too many crappy driving/racing games
This is mainly a symptom of what's currently in video arcades. Fortunately, there's much more available with even a cursory glance at Wal-Mart.
(I'm not saying that there's no variety on PCs, either. I just don't believe that consoles are dead or even dying.)
I also don't buy the idea that any kind of strategy game needs top-of-the-line PC hardware, despite what the folks who are *FINALLY* bringing Star Fleet Battles to the PC might wish us to believe. The essence of that game could be programmed onto a Commodore 64 given a talented programmer. Just draw the damn grid and add up the numbers in the energy allocations, please. Oh, and handle cloaked ship movement.
By the way - consoles have mice. That's the only way X-Com for the PSX is even *remotely* playable. Console mice go back at least to the Genesis/SNES - I don't recall whether there was an NES mouse. If you'll take a trackball as substitute, we go back to the Atari 2600.
I just hope that if consoles and PCs do "converge" for gaming purposes, the end result will have the ease of use the consoles have. I don't know about the rest of you folks, but when I want to play a game, I want the actual process of starting the game to be a no-brainer. I do *NOT* want a repeat of my experience getting Half Life to run.
-- Rick
1) I want Linux on it. It shouldn't be that hard to put a bootloader on a CD to get the code from ether (or the crappy modem until we can get ether on it). The whole system could run via nfsroot (yes, you'd need a server. Probably your Dual K7 ipmasq router with 10+Gb of disk full of mpegs). Then we could...
2) Beowulf.
Hate to break it to ya, GameBoy, NES and several others already have Hacked and new XXX-ROMs. Any ConsoleKiddie with 60$ has a RamCart.
For one thing game engines for the PC need to catch up. Look at the realistic dying for GoldenEye. You shoot someone in the hand they shake their hand like they just got shot! I also can't wait to see some games on a 61" HD-TV, that'll look sweet (i could care less what system their on, as long as the res is incredible (1600x1200+) most of the reasons for computer have already been said. (despite my message i'm actually a PC Guy)
Both you and the original poster seem to have been out of the loop for a while, these things have been addressed.
The current playstation has two ports for little 'flash' cards to save games onto, you can save dozens of games on a single one, bring your games to a friend's house etc..
As for demo's, you can buy playstation magazines which come with demo cd's which contain a dozen demo's for games, so that's pretty well covered as well.
The PS2 certainly is going to open up alot of interesting opportunities as it seems to blend the computer/console line very well. It seems to offer expandability (using industry standards) and has the horsepower to really dish out some graphics.
As for those who say that console games don't have the depth of PC games, again this is a pretty dated concept. Take a look at FF7, which is one of the better RPG's I've ever played on any platform.
-Nic
actually, B&W movies DO SUCK!
but really.. tried playing Command and Conquer on the Playstaion? You can't even tell the units apart, let alone read the text..
:)
-geekd
I see your point, and when HDTV comes out, everything will change (well, not when it comes out, but when it's affordable)
:-)
and I almost never pay for my PC games...
and my whole computer was $800, and upgrading it will be much less. Actually, I'll just get another whole new computer and replace my P100 Linux server with my AMD 350 box.
I see what people are saying. I just think most Console games SUCK, are very "arcade-ey" (I have no desire to play driving games or Mortal combat clones or baseball. If I wanna play baseball, I'll grab my bat and go play baseball!) I play mostly more in-depth games like Starcraft, Civ, etc...
PLUS, computer geek that I am, I like to do more with my PC than just play games.
I just don't see PC game sales declining. Maybe 5 years from now, but not anytime soon.
A PC development machine can indeed be had for about 2k. However, games these days require art, and quality tools are really expensive. Numbers like 5k for 3D Studio Max, 10k for MultiGen, and such really add up fast. I still think PC development is cheaper (Sony charges a bundle for special emulators and CD burners), but starting up either platform requires a lot of money.
Does this mean that PC games will start being as rigorously tested as console ones? That _will_ be terrible :)
Uhm, AFAIK, the HK pirates have yet to crack the DC Piracy Puzzle, so you are talking about of your arse on that one.
As for other consoles, Playstation piracy is currently *huge*.
FYI, you can use the Dreamcast on any ISP you feel like. You are only required to use sega's own service for online gaming. And besides, u'll get less lag on the games that way.
| And I know that people can say "But Joe Blow
:)
:)
| won't ever use this." No, he won't, but the
| "real gamer" is a quite sophisticated computer
| user. They buy $4000 computers with top of the
| line sound and video cards to
| play their games on.
But the point that the original poster was making was that it would be these sorts of things that would cause consoles to die. You have just pointed out one reasons why consoles will *NOT* die anytime soon. That is - the fact that to be a real PC gamer, you have to buy a $4000 PC every six months. (Top of the line in the PC world lasts 6 months or less). So while this customization may have its good points, it's not going to contribute one whit to the death of consoles as we know them - which is what we were talking about in the first place.
What will kill either way of gaming, IMO, is what killed off the consoles in the mid eighties. A lack of original games. Too many cookie-cutter games, if you will. To an extent, we're seeing this with PC games these days. I mean, just how many Quake clones does one warm body need?
| Even with a network connection, show me how
| with a console, I can log on and chat with my
| buddies across the country and then arrange a 1
| on 1 deathmatch for later that night. Maybe
| someday, but not today and until I can do that
| on a console, it's PC's for me.
Cripes, man, you can do that on a Sega Saturn.
-- Rick
Am I supposed to be doing something with my home PC besides playing games? Can you actually do usefull work with one of these (not counting the naked lady downloads)?
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
I agree. I actually think the development of the PC in this respect has been slightly faster, up until now anyway. Think back to the days of the NES. If memory serves me right, those games seemed pretty advanced compared to what you could do on a PC. Yet right now (until PS2 anyway), I think most people would agree that the PC is superior. :-)
True.. But as you can see I didn't say "PC" in my post - PC wasn't originally developed to be used as a game machine at all. At that time there were other home computers which had games similar to NES - the only thing they lacked was Super Mario
--
It has to work - rfc1925
There are several points to be made for both arguments. On one hand, you have a very simple to use device which allows for simply playing games or very simple games and the other a deversified system that allows for many a task to be completed.
The game console is compact, simple to use. Unfortunately it lacks the multiplayer capabilities, high resolution and possibly will not allow for the depth of a standard PC.
However, the PC does have limitations. Ease of use is not always key in the Operating Systems we use, neither is stability. But our games are usually more complex, have more depth and allow for the multiplayer experience which is what makes games like Quake endure.
Now if we look at the way computers and consoles are in today's society. One would conclude that one or the other may win based on many a different variable. The thing about planning for the future is that the future is not a fixed point, this it changes.
Many people believe that computers will be simplified greatly. The iMac can be used as an example to this... In essence, personal computers will become "appliances" for the general populous.
Now don't get me wrong, nothing will ever convince me to use a one piece computer that matches the colours for my blender. However, not everyone needs a system that allows for diversified use, in fact many would be content to have a simple every day specialized device.
And that is where the consolidation takes place. Simply examine what consoles are... In essence they are simple appliances geared to be pleasing eye candy, and computers will in time probably degrade (as I see it) to such a point where the two products will seem indistinguishable from each other.
NOTE: This is simply a possible outcome of the future (one of an infinite amount).
In order to avoid making my post flamebait I will avoid naming the computer you just described. Instead I will take the opportunity to add one more thing, possibly the most important, addition to make a console into a PC. The PC must be programmable.
The PS2 is one year/year and a half from release in the US. It was going to come out this holiday season in Japan, but it probally won't make it, so it will be March there. And yea, I'm sure Nintendo will wait 5 years. Do you know ANYTHING about the console world? Didn't think so. And yes, the DC is impressive, and it is worth getting. But you can't deny the Dolphin will be more powerful, it will, it has to, it's coming out later. And the DC doesn't have LAN capabilities yet, it's being worked on, but it will just ship with a 56K modem.
Currently computers are way to difficult for average people, but that is changing. Most teenagers these days can learn to use a computer very quickly. And for those who will never learn to install new hardware, most everyone has a computer literate friend who can install the latest and greatest video card to play the latest and greatest games.
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient... - High Road to China
Free software for consoles?? you mean some crappy game that noone would touch even tho it would be free
Consoles are great because it is a controlled environment. That's nice. But aside from similar
development tools (GNU) and similar skills. PC
Game developers have alot of room to creatively
add multi-user gaming experiences to a complete
networked-PC. This is something that confuses me
sometimes, as it is not that hard for a console
designer to include an el cheapo NIC card or
modem, or both, into the package. It shouldn't
cost that much.
Anyone else remember the Great Crash of 1984, when the console market went to shit? Many of these same issues were brought up then. People started deciding that the price-plummeting early home computers were a better value proposition. Plus, they could feel better about buying an "educational" C-64 than an Atari 7800 or a Colecovision.
The market is getting to the point where another shift in consumer opinion of the value is possible. I think we'll soon see a violent price and feature war between consoles and PCs. Cheap, powerful PCs with upgradability built in to the price or payment plan (but something less lame that Gateway's YourWare). Consoles will get cheaper and push better-than-arcade-quality graphics and sound, while attempting to steal some fire from the PCs with Internet access and more education and productivity titles.
What will really be interesting is which side will give up more of its uniqueness to gain market share. To out-PC the PCs, the consoles have to become less of a console. To out-console the consoles, PCs have to lose some of what makes them not a console.
Should be a wild ride from the consumer perspective, with a whole lot of products that have huge feature lists and easily affordable pric e tags.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
This is some thing which has been brewing in my mind for quite some time. I like to think genres which suceed on consoles are different to those which suceed on the PC. I am not always right, but from my personal exposure to console games, this appears to be the case, platform, rpg beat'em ups work well on consoles, where as RTS and first person shoot em ups are the rage on PC's.
How does this relate to resolution, well, the genres which succeed on console do not need eye candy for someone to appreciate the game. However, for the PC, image appears to be everything. Focus on game developement is on the game play, obviously good graphics are a bonus. This has always been a difference between American/European game developemnt and Japanese game development (echoed so many times in Next Generation and Edge).
So resolution and graphics may suck on a TV, but I'm sure a lot happier playing on my PSX than my PC. BTW, has anyone every thoough playing on a PC just doesn't 'feel' the same as a console.
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
How long before Microsoft views the consoles as a threat, in the same vein as Linux is seen as a threat? My guess is the minute one of the console vendors ships with a web browser PPP/TCP/IP stack, and default connection to AOL. I'm all for "appliances" suited for a task, as they tend to be simpler to use in the long run for their designed task (VCRs notwithstanding). But the proliferation of such devices as internet nodes dilutes the Microsoft grip on the client side.
I'm replying at this level but I have comments for both parents of this response. I too have paid up some money for the Dreamcast. Awfully nice system, good price range and first out the gate with MANY nice titles already lined up.
The Dreamcast has the option of running libraries from Windows CE but most of the games developed so far do not use these and instead use an alternate API provided by Sega which I believe will be the primary choice for most developers. Basically whatever OS is chosen is put on the disk, not in the console.
As far as I've heard (and I've checked out a lot of info) I don't believe you'll need to use Sega's ISP for Network access. You will most likely have to use their online network to actually connect up with other Sega gamers however. If all you want to do is surf with your Dream Passport software then any ISP will do.
Also, on a non-Dreamcast note I also collect classic consoles, particularly the Intellivision. The Intellivision Lives emulator CD has been mentioned here. There is a small group of people (myself included) who have been actually doing a bit of development for the emulator. No means of burning or presenting an image to a real machine has come up yet. It's quite fun and in my opinion the Intellivision seems like a pretty nice machine to become familiar with assembly or to just use.
sorry to be nitpicking
i think you mean Coleco Vision?
The Gateway Destination is a PC/TV.. A friend of mine has one, 31 inch 800x600 24bit resolution, a celeron 366, voodoo2 graphics, fantastic surround sound, dvd, wireless keyboard(with ps2 port) and trackball/remote... It's the ultimate in couch experience. Unfortunately they(gateway) are cutting that product line later this year.
I've heard that compaq and some other companies have similar offerings.
--
N64 has 2MB of RAM, period. That is fact. So does the Playstation, but the N64 is upgradeable. Fog and popup is due to the limits of the N64. N64 can not support over 200,000pps while the PSX is up to 400,000pps. The only advantage the N64 has is it has better effects to smooth out the graphics a little. That is very important considering the N64 has less space for skins to lay over those 3D objects, so they have to blend the pixels so they don't look as bad. Zelda didn't impress me, neither did any of the other titles you mentioned. They were all second rate games at best and yes I have played them (except for Banjo Kazooie, didn't care much for it). N64 is inferior in almost every way. The only reason it looks better is because of the effects.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You honestly think games for the PC in 1998 look better than Dreamcast games? Games TODAY don't even match the look of Dreamcast games. Sure the PC technology can handle it, but most people don't have a 550MHz PIII so developers don't program games with that in mind. They make them to run on a 200. A 200MHz PC vs a 200MHz console is a joke. The PC will be left in the dust of the console. I have seen the games for the Dreamcast. Hell, I OWN a Dreamcast. I also have a PIII 500 with all the little bells and whistles you'de expect on a modern day PC. My Dreamcast still blows away the competition. As for 2-3 generations of graphics processors... I wouldn't count on it. We didn't get that many this year. 3DFX and the Voodoo I have been out at least as long as the N64 which has been available in the US for over two years now. The voodoo3 and TNT2 cards are just coming out now. I would say at best, the next generation won't appear for another 6 months. The PSX will leave all competition behind, but the Dreamcast isn't all that far behind. Both are real powerhouses and no PC will be able to match them when they come out here.
Aaron Seigo
adseig@maila.wm.edu
It's good to see someone who actually reads what other people write. You're right, though. Neither will kill the other. PCs and consoles have their own plusses and minuses. Making a console more like a computer means sacrificing speed for functionality, while making a PC faster means having to find a way to remove some of the current functionality. This will keep the two separate. Until PCs are powerful enough to run photorealistic computer simulations on the fly, the two will never converge. It will happen, though. The only thing separating them now is the fact that the PC isn't fast enough to deliver cutting edge graphics, making it ideal for slower strategy games, while the consoles can deliver this sort of speed making it great for the fast paced less intellectually stimulating arcade games. Personally, I like both, so I have both a PC and several consoles. Both cater to completely different groups of people, however, so stating one is better than the other isn't possible.
Aaron Seigo
adseig@maila.wm.edu
Yeah it's enough to have to take the 15-30 year olds playing Quake III whining, bitching, crying and generally behaving unsportsman like. If Carmack had any sense, he'd stop making games altogether.
Flash cards certainly help as far as savings games go, but flash cards are usually small. So, their utility in saving games varies according to how large the saved game files are (or, until very large flash cards become cheap).
The demos in magazines are nice, but that is limited. You need softwhere for a computer to take a demo you downloaded from the Net and write it in the correct format to a DVD. That makes it more general (I don't want to have to subscribe to a magazine just to get the demos).
I think the most important complaint, after the lack of games I'd want to play, is the lack of online gaming. And a modem is just not good enough. I want high speed acces and I don't want voice calls to be prevented from getting through. The 10BaseT port is cheap and standard. Whether you have DSL or cable modem doesn't matter. Hook it up to your computer network, and you can play games that way.
You get your kid the amiga, and when he wants to play games, he can come over to our house and use the PSX2.
There have been a few funny things written about how pornography has led to much recent technological innovation. I hadn't thought about it with consoles before, though ...
... uncompleted novel."
DVDs - porno transfers and new DVD-only productions are a huge part of the market, and were an even bigger part a year or two ago.
VCRs - its often been remarked that dirty movies are what sparked most early sales
Hard drive space - "Yeah, I need the extra 10 gigs for my
HMDs - Ask the sweating, twitching guy in the window seat what he's watching on that Sony Glasstron. "Babe: Pig in the City"? I doubt it. "Babes: City Squeals" maybe.
Anyhow.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I wonder how free software will fit into the console equation.
Amazing, i've always had both and my cutting edge PC still doesn't have anything which is comparable to my Dreamcast. I don't see consoles dying until the PC is capable of having graphics so good that it looks like real life. Imagine the holodeck from Star Trek on a PC monitor and you will understand what I mean. If graphics get that good, they can't get any better, so consoles will become obsolete as hardware will cost the same for both and neither will be more advanced, but the PC will have more capabilities. As that isn't the case now, however, the consoles still have a long life ahead of them. Especially if they maintain their high quality graphics even in the higher resolutions offered by HDTV.
Aaron Seigo
adseig@maila.wm.edu
When was the last time your Playstation crashed versus your Windows95 "game" PC? Plus you don't have to worry about drivers or even such things as 3D cards. If it's made for console A, it'll also RUN on console A.
First off, PS is definitely not considered top of the line. It is technologically last right now (N64 is far, _far_ more advanced than PS).
Also, you're comparing a home gaming console to an office utility. Compare it to a 3-year old PC and see what _that_ can run as smoothly today. The PC gamer has had to invest at least 1K $$$ since buying his hot-shot whathaveyou PC 3 years ago, in order to stay reasonably near the top today.
Of course, you're right about the inflexible hardware locking you in - however, the good sides are that by the time the platform has matured (which is about 2-3 years), it's being milked for all its worth by the developers, instead of getting untested, unstable, buggy games on the PC because developers can always expect the suckers to buy more RAM/HD/accelerators/etc, and download their "updates".
Lets face it, if it weren't for the fact that 12-15 year olds would rather be playing Tekken than Civ 2 the consoles wouldn't stand a chance either. But you don't see Soul Caliber on a PC and you don't see too many 12 year olds buying Alpha Centari.
especially since, with computer makers the profit is made on the sale of the box, while for sony, nintendo, and sega, the profits are made on the liscensing fees on the programs. the game machines are usually sold at a loss. Also, the "top of the line" life of a console is longer than that of a pc.
If sony was smart, with the PSX2 they would make it damn easy for some one to get online (out imac the imac)
the psx has usb ports right? so you could hook up a printer, a zip or hardrive, and have a pretty capable computer.
now to go offtopic: has anyone been to www.slashdot.com lætely?
i went there by accident, and i got an ad for a cable wire company.
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Unfortunately for you the article is correct. PC GAME sales are not as good as console GAME sales. Sure MS's products will sell through the roof. Any standard software will. But PC gaming is not as popular as console gaming. Look at theinternational market. PC games are all but dead everywhere other than Europe and the US. Even there, the console games are more popular. Who cares if a sega system has office, or if the PSX2 comes with netscape. Their games will still be more popular than those on the PC because they're faster and prettier to look at. People don't by a console to be a business machine, don't compare it to one. You can still make plenty of money by programing console games. Apparently several US companies believe this is true as well since they also program stuff for the PSX, Dreamcast and PSX2. While you're digesting this, think this through as well, a PC is made to do all of those things, but how many people need to use a busines machine at home. A console will soon be able to do two of those things. So what do you think most people will want, a machine that does everything they want for $200 or a machine that does everything they want slower because it also has to do things they don't need for $2000?
"If Carmack has any sense (and I am sure he does) he wont bother with making console version of ID products"
Doom for SNES
Doom64 for Nintendo 64
Quake64 for Nintendo 64
Doom for Playstation (included Doom2 critters)
Quake2 for Playstation (saw it at E3)
Carmack doesn't need to bother with making console versions, they get made by other people. There most likely will be a Q3A port.
Not only PCs will be affected .. how difficult will it be to put VCR, DVD and set-top-box applications (satellite decode etc., not just internet gateway) on a PS2 ?
Let the owner decide how to dedicate secondary storage to save-points. It's such a waste to have a fixed number of save 'slots' on each game when with some games you will have few savepoints and with others you will have many. When you save them on your hard drive you get to decide how to proportion the total save space, by saving one game many times and other games not so manytimes. (For example, I might want to have 40 saved Strategy games, but only 1 or 2 saved racing games.)
Consoles do this NOW. Both the Saturn and the Playstation support external memory cards or cartridges which allow them to store as many or as few save games as they want. They can even put the games they want on different cards to separate them and switch the card mid game to load from another card. All this at the fraction of the cost of removable media for the PC.
Buy lots of memory and swap between two games at once.
I don't know anyone who does this with their PC. I wouldn't. Even with lots of memory, it will often crash your PC or even corrupt a drive (trust me on this it has happened with other program types).
Play a game 'in the background' while getting work done, all on the same screen.
Consoles are built for those who want to play games, not work. So If you really need to get that work done while playing a game (and I don't know anyone who can successfully do this) buy a PC. If you want to play good games buy a console.
high digital resolutions: TV screens suck.
HDTV is high resolution. With the right device plugged into your system any console can have those high resolutions, including the PSX or the Saturn. If you don't believe me get Bleem!. It can run your PSX games in high res, if the games didn't have that capability it wouldn't be possible (which is why the same isn't true of SNES/Genesis games).
I can choose to spend lots of money only on those bits of hardware that matter to me. For example, since my hearing is less than perfect, I can't really hear the difference between 8-bit and 16-bit audio anyway, so I might as well just go with the cheap cards. Similarly a color-blind person doesn't need as expensive a monitor as someone else.
True, but even when going with the cheap stuff, you still end up spending more than with a console.
Aaron Seigo
adseig@maila.wm.edu
Remember the Coleco Adam? (And I think there were some similar motions by Atari ...)
Game-machine as PC is not new, but your point is still basically true, that difference holds no matter how much convergence is always predicted for 'this time next year."
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
The poster asks: "In a few years, will there really be much difference between a "game machine" and a "home" computer?"
At the present rate of progress the game machine will be faster and with a much better graphics engine.
I once saw an advertisment, dating from the early years of this century for a wonderful device: "The Home Electric Motor" It came in various sizes, needed only a modicum of regular weekly and annual maintenance and had a fabulous range of attachments for carbet-beating, egg-whisking, clothes washing, etc. etc.
I rather feel that the present "home computer" is a comparable beast, and will eventually go the same way -- absorbed into single-function appliances -- sealed for life and maintenance free.
In twenty years, our homes will be full of computers, but we will interact with none of them directly.
E3 last year (not this most recent one) the guys from Playstation and Nintendo were showing graphs of how it looked like the game systems and the computers were going to merge which was optimistic since their charts showed computers catching up to console sales in the year 2005.
As an interesting point of info, in Japan in 1995 when I was last there, about 90% of households with children (and probably most without) had a console system of some sort. Computers were exceedingly rare though. I wonder what's happening over there.
-- Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on. Winston
I don't know about the statement that NES games always ran at 60fps, seems like you're mistaking refresh rate for frame rate...I can recall being able to slow down nearly _any_ shooter/sidescroller by simply running along until I had a large trail of enemies behind me. Didn't take very long before I was crawling along at 3-5fps...
Also, you're discounting the advantage that PC's have had with regards to resolution and color depth. Ultima VI and Wing Commander in VGA looked a _hell_ of a lot better than anything for a console at the time...
In a few years, will there really be much difference between a "game machine" and a "home" computer?
I think in the near future, a game console will be indistinguishable from a personal computer. Perhaps imperceptably at first, but eventually the processors in game consoles will become powerful enough (with fast chips becoming so cheap) that to not add the extra features would be more difficult (features such as encryption engines, graphics capabilites built into the chip, perhaps wireless network protocol support).
In about a year, using your N256 will entail:
...all while playing a first person action game with real-time movie-quality graphics.
(darren)
Shoddy as the Dream castis, I recall the Saturn was a nightmare in side, but the box is SOLID as a rock. I can't rememeber how many times my friens have had to take they PSX in to get fixed, while my gf's brother's Saturn never missed a beat. My future concern is tho whether the Saturn (Japanese version anyway) is subject to the Y2K bug. I'm confident the PSX isn't.
Anyway, with the OS's, from what I gather, MS was involved, but their role does not appear to be as large as first anticipated, and many developers do not choose to use WinCE as the choice for their games anyway.
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
I haven't seen that in years.
sniff.... The memories...
Just looking at those old Joystick paddles, that used to break 'cause they were made of plastic. Kinda puts a lump right in my throat.
I'll try to resist getting the emulator....
Show me the console that has the latest hardware every 6 months.
These things are great when they come out, but by the time they're a few years old they suck. Some do have minor upgradeability, but nothing like the PC. (the N64 is upgradeable from 4 meg to 8 meg if I am correct, try to run Q3arena on THAT!!)
I own a N64 and regret buying it, i barely ever use it anymore because the graphics are horrible. Sure in a few years they'll have the playstation2 and the nintendo 128 or something, and initially, they may be better graphics/speed than a PC, but the PC market evolves too quickly for the console manufacturers to keep up.
Don't get me wrong, consoles have their advantages, ease of use being the biggest one, but my N64 may soon be on ebay to pay for my new tnt2 card.....
Things they are a changin' Mr Anonymous Coward. Let's see.
1. You don't like modems. Well, the upcoming Dreamcast is purported to eventually have LAN adaptors and such available for communication.
2. Resolution, bit of a sore point still. No 1024x768 yet but it is possible to display on a monitor at higher resolutions with the DC VGA box. Most upcoming consoles should have similar functionality
3. Gamepads: Hmm, for FPS and such I agree. The controller used depends on the type of game more than the fact it's on a console. That's why they market gamepads for the PC as well. That's also why you can get joysticks and other controllers for consoles. Once again, since it's the only new console I have real knowledge of the Dreamcast already has a keyboard and mouse coming out.
4. Sound: This is just silly. All current consoles can output Stereo at least and the new Dreamcast has a very nice Yamaha sound processor that can do 3D positional sound, Stereo and all those nifty thing.
5. HD: Well, if all you need to do is save game states then do you really need a hard drive? N64 has that Dex drive thing, DC will have a ZIP drive.
Wipeout 2097 is a very good game. I somewhat doubt we'll ever be able to play that incarnation of the series over the net. Games will most likely have to be written to take advantage of multiplayer capabilities.
:-) )
I have a decent PC and hope to keep it "shit-cool" if I can. I also own consoles and will continue to own consoles. They serve very different purposes in my mind. For gaming I would much rather sit down in the midst of many friends and tromp them on my TV screen rather than crowding around my computer to play. For programming and productivity and the like I very much prefer to sit at my desk and use the computer. (or in my recliner and use the laptop.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. Consoles are specialized for gaming, deliver a better bang for the buck and have little problem with hardware/software incompatibility or setup.
PCs can do a lot more than play games, have a lot more games to choose from than any single console, and can be upgraded to the latest hardware on a yearly basis.
But like every year, people keep saying the two will one day converge (sortof like how they keep saying TV and the Web will converge) and every year it doesn't happen - and won't happen.
It's just two different worlds.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Of course they market the games to kids. They market games to kids who don't install mod chips and download games off the internet.
So they don't believe in the whole "convergence" trend that hasn't really been happening, eh? Still, one wonders why people would buy game machines when PCs are making their way into an every-growing number of homes. Especially with free/subsidized PCs driving the trend. Last month, PC sales rose 35% over the PREVIOUS MONTH.
The last console I bought was the Atari Jaguar which allowed you to connect up to 5 people together (seperate screens) and play multi-player games. But since Atari made the mistake of not creating an API (everything was written in Assembly) the platform died. Needless to say it was probably the last console I buy - I'm sure I'll always be able to upgrade my 'puter to make it faster and more enjoyable than any console game.
LRJ
The upcoming PSX2 is being compared to a supercomputer. With 1.2 GigaFlops of processing power.
"Perception is reality"
Bleem has a nice artile on their website (http://www.bleem.com the site is all frames so i couldn't link directly to the page, it is under help off their main page) that describes why a PC emulator can't keep up with the PSX. when PSX2 comes out it wont even be fair.
Dont get me wrong...i love my bleem, but those consols can just kick butt when it comes to graphics...
Let's face it. If it weren't for those stupid game publishers who demands the PC games to be released on schedule, even if they are buggy, incomplete, extremely bloated, etc., console companies wouldn't stand a chance (or at least much less popular) by now. Sure, game consoles have fixed specs that help programmers to optimize the target platforms, but that doesn't prevent publishers to release bad games or making games in a hurry (yes, they have).
In addition, if I bought a console game and it doesn't work, at least I can get refund legally; PC games, OTOH, don't have such protections for consumers (in fact, current law is against refunding PC games, but that's another story). With that in mind, consumers are less likely to pay PC games than console games, regardless of quality.
Before those game companies complain about loss sales on PC through piracy, game consoles, etc., they should look at their release policies first before whining.
You're forgetting one important thing: In 1985 when the NES came out, Intel PC's were still business tools. That means they were designed to do one thing: run Lotus 1-2-3. IBM figured that graphics wouldn't be used for much besides bar and pie charts, and so designed the CGA and EGA the cheapest way they knew how (and then overcharged for them). Contrast this with the Amiga, which was a PC (it was not Intel, but still a PC) that had excellent graphics right out of the starting gate, and with today's accels which are practically falling over themselves trying to push out more pixels than the other guy.
Nevertheless, PC gaming produced a few gems, such as the fully 3D Flight Simulator, which could not have been done on consoles (whose graphics subsystems were optimized for flat tile-based displays with moving sprites). Wolfenstein brought the beginnings of 3D gaming as we know it with texture maps and the whole bit, on standard hardware, in an era when Mario and Sonic were still moving about in their planar 2D worlds. Wolfenstein predated the 3DO by 2 years.
Consoles generally contain cheap, consumer-level versions of technology that's been available for computers for years. They were just more expensive. Now that computers are considered viable for games, they're starting to manufacture the cheap consumer versions of this hardware for installation on a computer.
It will be difficult for console manufacturers to exceed the capabilities of a well-equipped PC and still keep their prices low. The PSX 2 is impressive. But by the time it comes out, PC accels will deliver about the same number of polygons at a much higher resolution.
That said I think I might skip the PSX 2 and get my hands on one of those new Amigas.
They often have amazing depth. I consider Chrono Trigger on the SNES to be the single finest game I've played. It was an amazingly detailed RPG with an intricate story line, about a dozen possible endings, and very nice graphics for the time. The first RPG on the PC that I would consider even comparable is Might and Magic 6, though MM6 doesn't have nearly the storyline that Chrono Trigger did. It still blows me away that they fit 60+ hours of INTERESTING (read: not time-wasting) play in a 4 megabyte cartridge. (I'm not 100% certain about the size: if anyone out there wants to correct me, please do. :-))
:-)
I've seen this 'consoles are going to kill computers!' article at least twice before. The Genesis, and later the 3DO, Saturn, and Playstation were all supposed to kill off PC gaming. None of them have done it yet.
When the Playstation shipped, its graphics were wildly better than PCs, but you saw how long that lasted.
If they don't include at least a 10-base-T port, this generation absolutely will not kill off PC gaming. Massive multiplayer gaming is going to be big. They're just now learning how to do it. And a modem just doesn't cut it for online play. Without DSL/cable and a 10-base-T port, the consoles will need at least one more rev to really enter the multiplay area.
-- Ron
Game consoles 'blow away' PC sales??? PLEASE... when and if consoles can run Joe Office Worker's shrink wrapped crap from work (think Mickeysoft Orfice) and ONLY then. Who do they think is GULLIBLE enough to believe this junk? Oh, and the article is from some kind of N64 circle jerk 'zine... REALLY objective.
Let's think this through... PC sales are driven primarily by people who want to 1) run office software at home, 2) surf the web, and 3) play games. My, my... 1 out of 3 means consoles LOSE. And to get it straight, it's been *PC's* who have been catching up to game consoles in raw graphics processing power, NOT the other way around.
The main thing you have to look at too is that makers or real software packages have *NO* incentive to port their wares to consoles. Nintendo, Sony, etc., are SO busy soaking their developers that there's hardly any room for the actual producers of code to make a buck. It is WAY easier to make money on real development platforms. The failure rate on individual games and game companies is abysmal, even compared with the dog eat dog world of PC software.
Whoever wrote and believes this stuff, I want some of whatever they're taking...
Don't think console manufacturers don't know that TV resolution sucks
.
Sega sell a peripheral for the Dreamcast (in Japan) which outputs the display to SVGA.
I assume this means that the software renders at some high resolution, which gets scaled down to TV res between the video memory and the TV output -- output to a better display, and you can enjoy the full resolution.
After all, the *games* aren't (always) written to *any* particular resolution. That's why you can play Zelda at 1024x768 using UltraHLE.
OTOH; few people complain about TV resolution when they're watching TV -- because they watch TV from a sensible distance, and because of the high bit-depth. For the kind of arcadey fare I like to play (Tekken, Puzzle Fighter, Bomberman), resolution ain't much of an issue.
--
The Dreamcast by sega wich comes out on 9.9.99 will be the next major turrning point. With the included 56k modem to allow online gaming things will be changing. I only hope that Mr Carmack sees this powerful unit and when developing (not if but when) Q2 and Q3Arena for the DC designs it so it's playable aginst PC versions!! The main Drawback is Segas lack of insight for allowing end users the ability to create games on their own, as Sony did with the Yaroze. If everyone could just drop sega a line defining their disapointment with this maybe it can be changed!!
Did you actually THINK about it for any length of time before posting? I didn't think so.
Those are HARDLY reasons why consoles would "die a slow death". For the same reason that Windows is more popular than Unix consoles will not be going away soon, however for the same reason Linux is so popular, PC based games won't either. The point is that the two will get closer and closer together, perhaps eventually merging the flexibility of a PC with the stability and ease of use of a console.
How about a built-in ethernet card? I've got an ethernet network hooked up to my cable modem which would be ideal for a console to plug into and use for network play.
2) my previous flatmate used to stay up all hours of the night playing Command & Conquer on his playstation, it's not as convenient with a pad as with a mouse, but it doesn't stop anyone, plus, nothing's preventing manufacturers from bringing out mice for consoles, and, tho they're not very popular, some are already available
3) will be downloadable via the modem or insertable memory cards 4) map designing can be fun, and isn't likely to be a feature of consoles any time soon, but nothing's to stop people using their PC to design a map then download it to the console to play. why have both? well cos if the latest 3d accelerator card costs more than a console which is more powerful, why not? :}
remember, the article isn't saying "PC's are dead" -- people aren't gonna be installing nintendos in offices to do their accounts on -- just that PC games sales are going to go down. here in the UK there are already 10x as many console games sold as PC games. we see the weekly charts come in and a console game might ship 100,000 units or more in it's first week while the PC games struggly in at around 8,000-10,000.
(disclaimer: i write games - for PC and PSX - for a living, but i don't speak for my employer)
The Dreamcast itself does not run WinCE - the operating system is included on each game GD. So far, only Sega Rally 2 (and perhaps Rage's Expendable and Incoming) have used the WinCE environment; the rest use Sega's own OS. Oh, and I have never had Sega Rally 2 crash on me in the several months I have owned it.
The Dreamcast WinCE is a great advantage for porting PC games (the Rage games), and parallel development (see Bioware's MDK2 and Accolade's Slave Zero), and offers a familiar development environment for PC software houses.
On the other hand, console developers can get stuck into Sega's own dev. environment, or even create their own (as Argonaut are doing for Reg Dog).
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
"I have never been happier than I am now; a fact which depresses me immensel
My personal thoughts, as someone who enjoys computer games. Until consoles have robust multiplayer, better resolution, better controllers, allow addons/patches, and have half decent strategy games I'm not going to bother. I've got a PC anyway- why do I need more hardware?
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
If I remember correctly, a custom linux box will be the development system for playstation 2 games.
I saw an ad on TV saying that quake2 for N64 was just released.
I laughed, and laughed, and laughed...
And went and played some Q3Test 1.07 deathmatch...
How are the internet connections going to work on the new systems?
Are we going to have to pay a monthly check to Sega/Sony/Nintendo if we want to take advantage of their modems?
Or can we just plug the suckers into what we already have?
>What will kill either way of gaming, IMO, is what >killed off the consoles in the mid eighties. A >lack of original games. Too many cookie-cutter >games, if you will. To an extent, we're seeing >this with PC games these days. I mean, just how >many Quake clones does one :)
>warm body need?
The same could be said for console games just as easily, if not more. Me and my friend at college share a lot of interests - computers, anime, etc. but he's a console nut and I'm a PC/Linux gamer. You see way too many Quake clones on PC's (and you're right!) but people still buy them. On my friend's PS (he's going to get a DC soon) I see way too many "Virtua-Tekken-Mortal-Street Figter Beta Gamma V Gold edition" clones, each only differing by the amount of gore and what effects come out when you hit various combos. I also see too many crappy driving/racing games (Gran Turismo exepted), and although console RPG's are fun, but I'd still like to see some more in-depth ones (like Fallout, Baldur's Gate, etc.)
I'm also a strategy fan and RTS games on consoles won't work as well due to control and screen resolution issues. I still prefer turn-based strategy and I don't think you'll EVER see a big console seqment for that genre! In short, Until consoles get HD's, mice, and HDTV, I doubt they'll be a big convergence between PC and console games. It is good that they're working on the network aspect of console gaming though, I just hope a new generation of more complex, mature, and immersive games will be developed to take advantage of the new capabilites, though.
Respectfully,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@maila.wm.edu
Bill has been aware for years about appliances. He can pay for study after study at his disposal. Microsoft allready made sure wince was included with saga's copnsole.
:-) but still faster then the AMD k7 which is coming out. I laughed so hard I was crying when my freind told me that the new nintendo could actually outperform a indy workstation at the time. There are huge problems for pc's that prevent them from competing cheaply against game consoles. The first problem is very old design. We have I/o's buses and bioses and memory and even code in the bios to slow down the bus os it wont screw up older hardware, etc, etc. MOtherboards are huge and add to the cost of the computer. Todays computers are way overly engineered. We need something very simple like a simple I/o with firewire, plug for a hardrive, usb and thats it. Keep it simple. Get rid of the bus and bios or put simple ciricuitry to make sure the new machien boots off a hard disk or diskette drive with a switch. This will help the cost down to develop ethernet cards or I should say ethernet plugs for this new machine and it will help keep the ost down for alot of pheriphals like video cards. The AGP and pci bus forces card manufactors to triple the cost of there cards because of circuitry which does nothing but actually slow down your computer.
:-)
The problem is that computers use to buy much faster and more pwoerfull then consoles but thats now changing thanks to smaller micron chips and cheaper manufacturing technology. Back in the old days of 1994 a freind told me that n64 was soo fast that it could theoritically outperfrom a $1000 computer. HAHAH I thought! Like a childs console could outperform a cheap computer. Today consoles can outpefrom even expensive cmputers. ANother event that happened a few months later in 1995 was someone told me about a new console that had cool graphics. IT was built on a motoralla 68020 or 6020 or whatever the computer ships that were used in old amigas and mac II's and I mentioned that its as slow as a 286. IS this fast enough? They replied that computers were always going to be 5 to 15 times faster then consoles and it was ok for just video games. I mentioned that I prefer pc games because they were faster. I know you are all laughing or scratching your heads on these silly comments but there are all true and you would of been laughed at ONLY 4 years ago if you mentioned that consoles were only a 1/4th as fast as pc's.
Times have changed. Today the N64 was not only as fast as a speedy pentium75 (1995)
We need to change todays pc's into appliances if we are to survivie the game console wars. I prefer computers because the games are better in my opinion but if sony could develop an advanced ps2 that could have a hard disk and run linux like the romours say, then I will be first to leave the pc boat.
Sorry guys but the ps2 will even leave marcedes in the dust. I could compile the kernel in just 30 secs on that machine.
A desktop computer isn't meant to be a gaming platform. Gaming is an incidental capability springing from the plastic nature of the device. Even if everyone does decide to play games on consoles, PCs are still going to be around for the million other things people do with them.
Smith-Corona and the like made a lot of cheap word processors with floppy drives and LCD screens, yet I don't see anyone using them.
Is someone going to come out with a standalone image editor? An off-the-shelf air traffic control system? A TV based desktop publishing setup? As computers get faster, they usurp the roles of previous devices, video and photography being a prime example (and arcade emulation, of course).
I'll take a computer any day over a sea of appliances.
Not only does the US Dreamcast come with a 56Kmodem, but some 3rd party hardware designers are also trying to develope an ethernet addon for the system. Until HDTV becomes a standard, though, I don't see the consoles replacing PCs.
Replace a computer?
Does that mean my console is going to do e-mail? (Add a keyboard) Does that mean I'm going to be able to browse the web without destroying my eyes? (Add a monitor.) Does that mean I'm going to need an input device more appropriate for these operations? (Tack a trackball onto the already-complicated console controls.)
Gonna do my word processing to write notes to granny? (Add a hard drive to save things larger then a few K.) Gonna print that web page? (Add a printer.)
Now, at this point, what do we have? We have something on the order of a modern computer. The console's big advantage, as everybody else says, is that it is truly plug and play. So, we have two possibilities:
1. The console company locks down all options, and, quite probably, is the sole manufacturor of the perhipherals. Now, you get plug and play, but you have no options, and you still can't use anything that wasn't designed in from day one. (And you will PAY THROUGH THE NOSE for this priviledge).
2. The console company allows others to create things for the console. Don't fool yourself into thinking that consoles are somehow immune to conflict issues. If everybody is creating things, there _will_be_incompatibilities_, so consoles will lose their biggest advantage. They'll still be cheap, and look good, but adding all this hardware will be expensive, and no real upgrade choices will exist.
Now, ask yourself, how can consoles replace PCs by 2005? In 2005, PC's won't look like PC's and consoles won't look like consoles, so how can you say that consoles will replace PC's? They will continue to merge until you get your choice between cheap and more expensive; and, rest assured, they won't be called consoles; they'll be called computers.
Consoles won't die, they'll just be absorbed into the computing-devices market. Just like Palm Pilots/WinCE will merge with portable gaming, because nothing else makes sense.
BTW, has anyone every thoough playing on a PC just doesn't 'feel' the same as a console.
Absolutely. Ever tried paying a driving game, say, while windoze decides to start taskman in the 'background'?
Having your ferrari slow down because the hard drive is spinning isnt the most realistic.
I don't think game consoles will totally replace computers (even for gaming) until HDTV is commonplace. Current TVs just don't have the resolution that most people want.
Have you ever tried to surf the web with Web TV?
Have you compared Star Wars Ep1 Racer for N64 to the PC version? (I picked that one because it is new and both versions were written at the same time) Console graphics are still too blocky and low res for me, and anything smaller than the type size my satelite reciever uses for the TV Guide is too hard to read. (and I wouldn't want to read it for very long, it's a strain on the eyes)
Downloading porn
1. Consoles have internet play now
2. Don't know anything about RTS so can't comment
3. Patches? I don't want no stinking patches. That's why console gaming is better, I don't have to worry about patches, or upgrading. It's the easy life.
4. You're right, kids wouldn't like it. But considering they own most of the consoles, it doesn't really matter does it?
I also considered a port, using the JagCD... but it would be a colossal waste of time, wouldn't it? :)
Huh? I've never even seen a saturn so I don't really know but, are you trying to say that the saturn has a clock/calendar? And that it uses this date information in some way to function? This seems highly unlikely to me. Worst case scenario just set the date back.
More likely I'm guessing there is no date function in a saturn and you are one of those loonies that spouts off about "the y2k bug" with no grasp of what "it" even is.
You are assuming that PC hardware won't advance. The PSX2 is impresive, but PCs will likly catch up and surpass it well before the PSX3 comes out. When the PSX2 first comes out you won't likely be able to emulate it's games on a PC, but you will in time. However, unless you have other needs for a PC that powerful, but PSX2 will likely be a lot more cose effective.
Yeah thats why my 15 yo cousin who just got a p2 400 and is halfway computer literate spends his time playing doom and descent 1 with his friends. He has internet access a good video card and can get software galore either legally or illeagally but he still plays jung games on his PC then goes and plays motoracer and tekken on his playstation... go figure.. I see that s*it all the time....
Hmmm, interesting so you do not need to link against their proprietry libs in any way? I'd have expected you to need to and then you would need to be licensed.
Because Dream cast *sucks*. I have used one and it nowhere even approches a PC quality game and performance. The eyecandy is pretty good, but about the same as a TNT (even though it uses VL's supposed third gen chip).
I own both a PSX and N64 and might get a DC and will definitly get a Dolphin, all despite having a "shit-cool" PC. I don't want to mess with it. Sure, it doesn't have internet multiplayer, but that's changing. And I still like the human interaction that goes on in Split Screen. I can play Mario Kart with my brother, without having to get another computer to play against him.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
When it comes to PCs, the Japanese are very different from the Americans. PCs are not a very strong platform for gaming or intense graphical programs. Instead, they remain mostly business machines. Home PCs are a much rarer commodity and very few colleges have campus wide networks which deliver T1 connections to the dorms or rooms of students. Instead, gaming is something which is handled by specially manufactured computers meant to do just that, gaming. This is where our modern day consoles come from, this Japanese mentality that PCs are not meant for gaming.
In the US it was the opposite. Home PCs were extremely popular and everyone was obsessed with having the state of the art computer. It's still that way. Most gaming companies in the US got their start from programming PC games.
The original consoles in Japan were seen as computers and not as console systems. Many still are. As TV and console technology gets better, we are now drawing closer to a unification of the two. There is not a single console coming out in the next 3 years which doesn't use technology borrowed from the PC. Because of this, the new systems are actually able to do a lot of the same functions as the PC. The Dreamcast, for instance, can be used for sending email or playing internet games, just like the PC. You can even buy a keyboard and mouse for the system to make this a lot easier. Future systems will probably support internet browsing as well and maybe even have a limited mard drive for saving information downloaded off the internet. As mentioned in another of the posts, some of the systems will have ports made to handle new technology, like external storage drives, printers, scanners, cameras, or even upgrades to existing hardware. This would be perfect for the japanese audiences who are looking for more affordable ways to become part of the internet community and still have all the functionality of a PC without having to buy a PC.
I can see a future where people turn on a settop box, browse the internet for a few hours, write up a term paper, then play a photorealistic version of some Mario-esque game, and then switch discs and watch a movie. It is possible now and I believe that in the next 5-10 years we will see such a system.
Game consoles running at 320x200 can run non-interlaced, and if they are then they get 60fps. Same as the C=64 did. One of the Genesis' Sonic The Hedgehog games included a two player mode which split the screen in half by going into an interlaced mode. It's extremely noticeble and distracting when the display is interlaced, and as such I'd have to say that 99% of the games on a console are running non-interlaced.
The Playstation has a Link Cable that allows two systems to be linked together for head-to-head games where each system has it's own display. I don't know how many games use it, but the option is there.
What I've read on the Playstation 2 indicates that it will allow you to hook up to a computer monitor as well as an HDTV set. Sure HDTV isn't prevalent at the moment, but I suspect that a lot of sets will be sold in January 2000 for the HDTV broadcast of the Super Bowl. Everyone I know who's seen HDTV sets on display(all the Best Buy's here in Houston have them set up) are extremely impressed with the image quantity and want one as soon as the price drops(current sets are around $8000, new sets coming out this fall will be around $4000)
Of course, the target market for consoles games is not the same as the target market for PC games. Also console games also have the benefit of having a known set of hardware to work with, and can drive the hardware harder than a PC game that has to worry about which video/sound card is currently in the users machine.
The three emulators I've ported to OS/2 (for Atari 2600, Coleco Vision, Sega Master System/Game Gear) only run at the proper speed if the target frame rate is 60fps(or 50fps for PAL based video games). As such, even the oldest console systems could acheive 60fps.
The main problem with games consoles is they are proprietry at the moment. You can only run playstation games on a playstation and N64 games on a N64 (I'm not taking emulators into account - that would involve using a computer). This gives the manufacturer a monopoly in their platform and then the besat software will be developed for that platform, it'd be great if an open standard could be defined for game consoles that all consoles could be based upon. That would make it easy to make games that would work on all platforms and would give the user a choice in which platform to buy. Of course there's problems in this idea but there does need to be some openness in the game consoles or we'll get another Microsoft type situation.
Actually, you won't get another Microsoft situation. People buy a system based on personal preference due to the games and the hardware. If all systems supported the same software then they would have to all have the same hardware as well. Then the cheapest system would be the best and one company would end up monopolizing the market since the other systems would die. Competition is necessary in this market, making all the systems exactly the same would result in one company dominating the market.
When HDTV becomes a standard, TVs will have a much higher resolution. In reguards to your statement about using a gamepad for RTS games, use a mouse. Most systems have one. Both PSX and the Saturn had mice and the Dreamcast and PSX2 will as well. In addition, the new systems will also have keyboards for email and other accessories. You'll find that in the future RTS games will move to the consoles and will become more successful as the new technology really takes off. Why pay $1000+ each year or two to upgrade a PC when you can buy a $200 console which will last you 3 years and will have cheaper, more reliable versions of the games?
Aah, but with the new USB ports on the PSII, we now *can* have a keyboard! :-)
But why hyperbolise about the PSII, when Dreamcast already exists, and *does* have an optional keyboard?
--
The biggest problem with most game consoles these days (apart from a lack of keyboard) is that they plug into TVs and TV resolution sucks.
What I'd really like to see is something like a PS2 with an SVGA out port on the back so it can be plugged into a computer monitor so that games can be run at decent resolutions.
Stick an RF wireless keyboard on it and nobody would need a windtendo box anymore.
Silver
PS2 is 100% backward compatible, so you can think of it as an 'upgrade' if you'd like...
Also, the N64 has a RAM expansion pack for enhanced textures.
I'm excited to see Passport... I believe (and obviously sega and sony do too) that there's a strong market for a Box that boots in 15 seconds and is always connected to the net. I tie my computer up with long renders on a regular basis, so having a cheap surfing machine would be great. A net connection also eliminates most of the PCs advantages in gaming - multiplayer, extra levels, updates. Next Generation has great coverage of these machines, such as this article about a Japanese Baseball game with a pay-per-use model. (The articles are usually more in depth than this one.) They could also charge for upgraded rosters, trades, etc. As far as resolution, I remember reading that either the Dreamcast or PS2 would have VGA out, which would be a blessing until I get my wega....
The Saturn most certainly does have a date function in it, and a user-settable calendar.
If you haven't seen one, you really shouldn't have posted with such certainty.
For the newer (3D) machines, I believe resolution isn't an issue (because of the high scalability of the 3D vector-based graphics). However, for older games (like Zelda for example), emulators that output at a higher resolution are probably just spoofing.
Consoles are not going to seriously threaten the reign of the computer until and unless the console can be used by the average person to download pornography from the internet and store it for later... um, use. And in such a way that the user's parent(s) and/or significant other will not easily discover it.
Technology in and of itself is nice, but if you want a technology to really take off, you have to involve it in either war or sex.
| The PC gaming market is bigger than ever!
:) Will probably be more common on the next-generation consoles.
;)
| Consoles will die a slow death
Er, don't you remember the mid eighties? Consoles *did* die out in the dark times betweeen the Atari/Coleco/Intellivision and the original NES. However, *since* the NES (and actually, during the time that PC gaming actually started to take off), consoles have been doing just fine. But let's examine your points:
1) Multiplayer. Done on colsoles (link cables, the Netlink, etc., as well as splitscreen). Why do you thnink most consoles have 2-4 joystick ports anyhow?
2) Strategy games? When there's a big enough market to make them worthwhile, they'll show up. There's nothing about a strategy game that requires a 500 MHz Pentium III with 512 megs of RAM.
3) Customization. For Joe Average, is that such a big deal? As for "patches for improved play", I read that as "the game was released with annoying bugs". This is more common on PCs than consoles due to the fact that there *are* so many damned graphics cards, sound cards, versions of Direct(su)X, etc. For the consoles, their unity in terms of what hardware will be there is a strength. The games typically work out-of-the-box.
4) Well, that's really rhe same point as above. When I want to tweak a system, it's usually not for a *game*. I put in a game to relax.
I don't believe that consoles are going away anytime soon, so long as PC gaming remains complicated (to just get games running, not in the level of gameplay) and expensive and console gaming remains easy and inexpensive.
-- Rick
When Sony announced its plans for the upcomming playstation2, oh, back in March or April, that it was going to use a Linux-based kernel nestled in their hardware? Apparently when Sony was in the initial design stages it went to their hardware and software people and gave them a servy to see what they wanted to use. It came back with some interresting results. The most notable is the hyper-high end graphics hardware (what? ~30 Mil poly a second) and the fact that people wanted to use C/C++ in a very hardware-intense inviroment (AKA Linux).
So, sit back, crank up your own machine and get ready to do some serious porting, because the line between the PC and Playstation just got seriously blurred.
3) Customization.
Customization isn't always "patches" to the game. For example, look at Quake 1 (quakeworld)/2/3, Half-Life, Kinpin, etc. The customizations are just that, customizations. Like TeamFortress and Capture the Flag for Quakeworld, TF Classic for Half-Life. These "mods" make the game (almost) completely different. They offer new weapons, new maps, new and different ways to play the game. That is what has kept Quake 1 alive to this day. Consoles just don't offer that type of customization.
And I know that people can say "But Joe Blow won't ever use this." No, he won't, but the "real gamer" is a quite sophisticated computer user. They buy $4000 computers with top of the line sound and video cards to play their games on. They know where to look online for the patches and updates and mods and new maps, etc.
And finally, my own problem with consoles. They take the community out of gaming. What do I mean by that? Many of the greatest games written have communities around them. Mostly IRC based, people come to talk about their gaming accomplishments, arrange to compete with other online gamers, etc. The console world doesn't offer this type of connectivity. Even with a network connection, show me how with a console, I can log on and chat with my buddies across the country and then arrange a 1 on 1 deathmatch for later that night. Maybe someday, but not today and until I can do that on a console, it's PC's for me.
According to your argument, black and white movie suck ass because it doesn't look realistic. I guess I will throw out my copy of Casablanca. And Planet of the Ape sux because they didn't have the computer to CGI a Jar-Jar Bink-ish Dr. Cornelius
For the average person in the street a computer is simply too complicated for them to use as well as been too powerful for their needs. You then also have the problems which have been outlined before - changing hardware (does my PC have a compatible video card, enough memory, the right OS?) is much less of a problem with game consoles. You buy a playstation and get a game for a playstation and it works. You buy a game for the PC and you have to check how much memory you've got, the video card, sound card, processor, memory, OS, etc. This is just too difficult for the average person who still hasn't worked out what to do with those AOL CD's and think they're a new form of music.
The operating systems are too difficult to use for the average person. You can't make an OS which is idiot proof without frustrating experienced users. Should we expect someone to learn how to use an OS just to play a few games?
With Windows 9x it's just far too easy to delete system files and make your system unbootable, also when it crashes a new user doesn't know this is normal they think they've done something wrong.
Linux is a great OS for most of us Slashdot readers and if someone spends the time and sets it up correctly it can be easier to use for a beginner than Windows. However Linux out of the box is extremely difficult for a beginner to master and however much work is done on the usability of any OS it'll still be too difficult for many people to get to grips with.
When you have a games console, it works, it's there, it's what the average user wants. Put in a CD or a cartridge and the program runs. No mounting disks (Linux), no strange crashes or complaints about lack of memory, incompatible hardware, etc. If the next generation games consoles can support printers and keyboards you have an ideal platform for internet access and simple word processing. Just add enoungh memory to these machines and a method for saving files and you've finally got something that the average user can appreciate.
The main problem with games consoles is they are proprietry at the moment. You can only run playstation games on a playstation and N64 games on a N64 (I'm not taking emulators into account - that would involve using a computer). This gives the manufacturer a monopoly in their platform and then the besat software will be developed for that platform, it'd be great if an open standard could be defined for game consoles that all consoles could be based upon. That would make it easy to make games that would work on all platforms and would give the user a choice in which platform to buy. Of course there's problems in this idea but there does need to be some openness in the game consoles or we'll get another Microsoft type situation.
--
The development platform for the PSX2 will be linux. No word on what the OS will be.
When was the last time you got your playstation to 1024 x 768 full on OpenGL in Quake?
TV resolution sucks.
RTS games suck with a gamepad.
RTS games suck at TV resolution.
There will always be some games that are better played on a computer.
-geekd
Why is it that everyone sees things in only black and white? Nothing can ever coexist if you visit a message board. And why is it always the smaller group that has to absolutely trash the majority (half the time with incorrect information and vulgar language to back up their argument) as if that will change the viewpoint of the masses?
PC's and consoles aren't even in competition with each other. If you think I am wrong, when was the last time you heard someone say, "You know, I've been debating whether to buy a PC or a console. I can only get one, which do you think?" It doesn't happen. If you can afford a fully loaded PC, you can afford a console system to go with it. If you can't afford a loaded PC, you might still be able to get the console.
Some of you people need to realize that for every computer gaming freak who can't live with anything less than Quake2 at a 150fps (and claim they can tell the difference from 100fps even though there monitor is running at 75hz, yea sure...) there are 50 who don't mind playing at 25 or 30fps. The mass majority just want to be able to sit down and play a game to relax or whatever. For that purpose, a console will do just as good as a PC if not better for a fraction of the cost and greater simplicity.
The PC gaming market is bigger than ever! Consoles will die a slow death I predict for the following reasons..
1) Uh.. how about MULTIPLAYER.. and no I don't be lame-o split screen games.
2) Strategy games, anyone? Consoles seem to have mostly kiddie action games, with a few badly ported PC games in the mix.
3) Custom levels, patches for improved play, huge choice in customizing display, input, etc. -- won't find that on consoles.
4) Tweak, tweak, tweak -- simpletons and kids may not like it, but damnit.. from refresh rate battles in FPS's, to map editting... computers offer us complex, intelligent fun!
Bah!
-Adrec
Aaron J. Shaver - aaronshaver@yahoo.com "Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do." --Bertrand Russel
You must be either stupid or crazy to make that assumption. If you don't own a console what do you know about console gaming? As far as i can see there are plenty of console games with great AI and much better plots than PC games. I can't think of any PC RPGs which I have felt like finishing. I can't think of and PC characters which I have liked. What's more I can think of plenty of PC games which left me wanting something more challenging. Many RTS games have disappointed me with weak AI and every shooter is full of idiotic simpltons who seem to have difficulty moving from one room to the next. Every now and then a patch will be made which fixes this, but that is rare.
On many of the console games I have played, there is better AI. In the new capcom game, Dino Crisis, for instance, the enemies will often use the surroundings to their advantage. They ambush you, track you down by trails of blood and are smart enough to not walk into a trap. I don't see that in most of the PC games I play.
Unfortunately I also see a lack of good writing when it comes to PC games. Also boring character designs and very little originality. Once a game is released, if it is a hit several exact duplicates or worse versions will be released soon afterwards. At least with console games many try to add in new elements to a game.
Apparently the Dreamcast and Playstation 2 (PS/2?) will have built-in modems; this is going to make all the difference. Once it's possible to play Wipeout 2097 (still the best Playstation game) over the net, PC games are going to see a decline in popularity. How many people reading this also own a console, despite having a shit-cool PC?
I can remember the days when I got my first computer. I can remember the days when Wolfenstein was state of the art. i has a kick ass PC for the day, but no kids in the neighborhood cared about that. We still spent all our time on the Nintendo/SNES or the Genesis because the games were more fun for our generation. The same is still true today. If my younger siblings had to choose between Johnny and his PIII 550 and nerdy little Gordon with his Playstation, they won't even think twice about hanging with Gordon. There is more that appeals to them on that medium. Plus there is less to think about as well. The only games which appeal to children on a PC is educational crap which most kids get tired of after 5 minutes. My sister still prefers our old 3DO to the pentium she has in her room. During the holidays, I often find my Playstation taking trips up to the living room yet my PIII 550 just sits there. Amazingly the new PC just doesn't seem to interest her in the least, yet the exploits of Solid Snake or the monster she has made in Monster Rancher seem to keep her attention for hours on end.
Wow, someone who agrees with me. Of course I must add a few words anyway. The Keyboard is already out and the mouse will come soon. There was also a keyboard and mouse available for the Saturn and mice available for everything starting with the SNES going on up. Saturn, PSX and Dreamcast all support dolby surround sound, I don't know what rock that guy has been hiding under. When HDTV becomes a standard you will have resolutions higher than those mentioned above. I see so many people posting invalid arguments on this site. Do a little research people. Don't come out here and spout some bullshit that isn't true. There is nothing worse than people making themselves look like idiots by posting obvious lies.
The Dreamcast has a version of WinCE made specifically for the system. As far as I know there are no bugs. In addition, most games don't run under WinCE. Games can bipass the OS to run independently. So far only one game actually uses it. It was included just for the directX drivers and the internet functions. No game is required to run in it, though, so don't worry about games being buggy. Besides the one game that does use it isn't buggy anyway. Games being buggy is a problem of compatability with hardware and drivers. This isn't a problem with a console.
Unfortunatly my friend, even if they do develop an emulator for PSX2, your PC will never be able to run it as fast as the PSX2. If you think about it a dedicated gaming machine will always be able to outperform a general purpose PC, if it is designed properly (i.e. NOT a sega Dreamcast running WinCE, I have used demo one playing Incoming and it is slower then my 333MHZ PC w/VooDoo2).
I can't imagine ever going back to a console type system with the type of games that are currently releasing on those systems. Heck, most console games converted to PC retain the same style of game play and they pretty much suck in my opinion.
I just can't see games (or their sequals) like
Independence War
Thief
Jedi Knight
Age of Empires
Baulder's Gate
ever translating to a console type system (just not enough buttons on that pad). Also, most of those games REQUIRE a mouse for decent game play.
Also, 56K? Hell, I plan on having DSL by years end. 56K will be ancient history. Dreamcast will be obsolete in my mind before it's even released (I realize not everyone will have access to DSL by the end of the year).
The high definition TV doesn't do much for me either. I don't expect to purchase one before I absolutely have to anyway (what's that date anyway, 2005?). I sure wouldn't buy one just for a console system.
I imagine this idea gets a fairly good response on a board like this because most Linux users (and I am one of them (part time)) want to justify the fact that it (Linux) is far behind Windows 95/98 in this respect (and therefore want an alternative to using Windows 95/98). But anyone who drops Windows and thinks they'll get a similar gaming experience on a console (no matter which one it is) is seriously missing out.
But this is really only about leisure and fun. If you can be blindly happy with a console, that is fine and dandy (but you will be missing out on some incredible games).
Well, you're fixing to get your networking. Starting with this coming generation of consoles, modems will most likely be included. It's a fact that the Dreamcast has a 56K modem, and so its' expected that the PS2 and the Dolphin will have them too. I just hope they also release a NIC so I can use my cable modem.
Why is it so strange? Can you're VCR also wash your clothes, wallpaper your bed room, teach you calculus, and cook you dinner? No?
That's because it is a single use, dedicated device. The computer is not. If you wanted your computer to do any 1 thing, and only that 1 thing (ie. web surfing), you could just throw everything you needed into ROM and, voila!, another mindless single purpose device.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Yeah, as soon as PSX2 can download porn, home PC will die slow and horrible dead. :)
cy
How long will it be before parents realize that the expensive computers they buy are merely game consoles with internet (warez) access?
Home computers are purchased for a number of reasons, but one of the most frequent (in the appropriate age-category) is that little Johnny needs a computer to help him get his homework done. Bovine scatology. He needs a word processor. He wants an expensive game machine. He needs 2-4MB VRAM. He wants a 32MB 3D accelerated video card.
And, of course, the PentiumIII-500 will make the web so much faster over a 56k modem.
First there were game consoles. Then there were computers, which were better game consoles than the game consoles. Now there are game consoles which are better computers than the computers. Whatever. I want internet access and the ability to distract myself. One item or two, doesn't matter.
I've been seeing multiple comments about how home computers have always been superior to consoles and now with the PS2 this will be reversed for the first time.
This is completely wrong.
Consoles have very frequently been superior when they're first released. When the NES was released, PCs had CGA and EGA graphics running over an 8MHz bus. You were hard pressed to get a decent frame rate for *any* game, but games on the NES almost always ran at 60fps (for the NTSC model) with a lot more color and sound.
When the Super Nintendo and Genesis were new, those were the days of Michael Abrash going through all sorts of contortions to get a handful of sprites moving quickly on a VGA card. The SNES, of course, could display three different layers of graphics and 80 sprites--with a sound coprocessor that didn't interfere with the CPU--while easily clicking along at the coveted 60fps. The SNES also could do transparency in hardware.
When the 3DO first appeared in 1993, Doom hadn't even been released yet. On the 3DO you could do arbitrary (though not perspective correct) texture mapping at a decent clip. This was even before early, weak 3D cards were available for the PC, like the Virge.
When the Playstation was released, the 3D games on it were stunning compared to what you could get on the PC. Geometry acceleration was also built-in; something that has yet to show up in a real way on consumer-level PC graphics cards. In this case, though, the PC caught up relatively quickly in terms of raw capability.
Consoles being more powerful is a definite pattern.
Consoles will NEVER win over computers again, until everyone has an HDTV to hook them up to, or until consoles come with a high-quality video passthru device so that you can play them on your computer monitor. Why? Because TV's are the crappiest display device you could ever choose to use, especially for games! Anything higher than 320x240 is blurry as heck, and the thing is set at a fixed frequency (can consoles even do 60FPS on an NTSC TV, or are they fixed at the 30FPS that today's consoles use?)
Also, anyone who believes that current consoles are even close to a match for even the low-end of acceptable game-playing PCs should go down to their local Software Etc. and play the N64 version of Pod Racer, followed by the PC version (go ahead and buy the PC version if it's not on display - it's SOOOO cool) The way I see it is this:
N64: 30FPS, 320x240, split screen, 1" analog stick
PC: 72FPS+, 1024x768, full screen multiplayer over an IPX network (VERY fun, even with only two people!), joystick as big or small as you want
There just isn't any competition. Now I know what you're about to say: "What about the Dreamcast, PSX 2, and Nintendo's next vaporware system?" Well, they can do as many polygons-per-second or millions-of-CPU-operations-per-second as they want, but I'm NOT going to pay $300 for a system that plugs into a TV that can only do 320x240x30FPS without sacrificing image quality! NO SIR!
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Technologically, no. You'll get a high powered console with various peripherals (keyboard, printer, storage, hi-res monitor etc.) to make it usable. And then you might as well call it a computer, because that's what it'll be.
However, the big difference will be social. Until the major players realise that restricting development is a bad plan, the traditional computer will always have a place. I bought an Amiga, not a SNES or a Megadrive, because I could program it. If I want to write something for a console, I have to pay the manufacturer a fortune (well out of reach of the average man on the street) for an approved devkit. Sure, I'm in the minority, and the general public won't care one way or the other, but even among Windows users, how many rely on shareware utilties? Those simply don't exist on consoles -- you're stuck with "manufacturer approved" software. Imagine if Micros~1 could dictate what software you were allowed to run on your PC. That's the position Sony, Nintendo and Sega are in now with consoles, and I don't see it changing any time soon...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Depends on who you listen too.
The PC marketeers are saying Death to the console - no mutiplayer no Networking no enhancements, no real third party addons ( is this always a good thing ? )
The Console crowd Scream Death to the PC and point to Market penitration in places like Japan and Korea when Console ownership is through the roof.
This link was posted by a Console website !
Who payed for the study ? was it (gasp) a console company. Could it really be just what they wanted to hear ( smells like M$ a little mindrafty eh ?)
I myself don't want a console. The last one I owned was a Hanimex something in the Early Eighties. Never again. Their games are shallow, (now) The resolution is limited, The AI is non-exsistant. And their mindsets are closed (they market and pitch products at 16 year old males).
Strong Features and super grahpics don't mean didly if you are just playing another platform scroller/shooter. Give me Falcon4 or Harpoon2 and build that level of complexity into a console ?( gimme a break)
Mroeder
How many parents do you think, go out saying " We'll buy a P.C. so that little Jonny can play top of the range computer games and whup ass in Quake 3. Any guesses? Not too many, I'd hazard. No they buy P.C.'s for thier kids do theat they can do thier homework and run *nc*rt* to find out 'stuff'. the games come later when every kid on the block finds out Jonny's got a PIII550! That is why the PC will reign king.
I had consoles (my last one was SNES), but PC is just BETTER than any console for obvious reasons:
....
1/ multiplayer games (I want Ethernet, no shitty modem)
2/ resolution (I want 1024x768 at 100Hz)
3/ gamepads suck (I want a keyboard & mouse)
4/ sound (I want 3D positional sound, no shitty MONO sound)
5/ I want a HARD DRIVE, no shitty overpriced proprietary memory cards
I could continue for hours
The Dreamcast has a built in 56K modem and you can even buy a keyboard for it. It will support net access, web access, e-mail, and of course multi-player gaming. Unfortunately, you have to do this through their ISP service. No details on what that'll cost yet.
I'm going to be damn curious to see what type of protocol it will use. Since it runs Windows CE as an OS, hopefully it's PPP and one can hack a Linux box to allow it to "dial in" to it, then let it access the net that way.
But, if the ISP service they provide is reasonable, I can see this bringing a lot more people onto the net. Everyone has a game console, even dirt poor folk. Computers still intimidate people, and even the friendly Macs drive people up the walls when "a type -2 error occured" pops up.
side note: beings that it runs Windows CE, we may see our first cases of seriously bugging game consoles crashing all the time. I have a Cassiopeia E-100 and that bitch crashes too often. All the wonders of big daddy Windows in a small package... :-(
Hmmm Hanimex - Arcadia 2001. Well, there's an emulator and one for sale on eBay.
"No, we don't have a playstation, but there's Pong hooked up to the B&W TV!"
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
computers will get easier to use as oses target to the mentally challenged ;)
;)
Plus there's a HUGE motivation to use a computer:
can you get lots of porn on a N64?
Of course the PSX isn't. It has no internal clock, it can't have a problem with Y2K. As for the Saturn being more stable, that is because it controls its heat a lot better. The playstation releases heat through a few openings in the bottom allowing the heat to rise back up into the system. It is also a single processor meaning it generates more heat as well. In that respect the PSX is one of the most shoddily put together systems you can buy. I've gone through two already and my third is showing signs of wear and tear already, even with the fan. I have never noticed the Dreamcast making noise. It isn't any louder than previous systems, but it does have the problem of heat management. Since the system is so compact, you need to find a way to keep it cool. I have to keep reminding my friends not to leave it on overnight. As for windows, it isn't on the system itself. Plus you can get Lynux developement tools for the Dreamcast as well from what I've heard and there are windows based developement tools for the PSX2 as well. Don't expect to have it emulated in Lynux anytime soon anyway. You would need a POWERFUL PC to handle that kind of emulation. No PC could handle it now, including your tope of the line SGI workstation.
Actually between the two new systems, the PSX2 is supposed to be more like the nightmarish Saturn than the Dreamcast. Of course the PSX2 is a little more rushed than the Dreamcast was. The system will have two seperate processors which handle different functions. The developement tools are extremely expensive and the programming is supposed to be more difficult than any other system.
Cartridges still cost more to manufacture, that is why most systems use CD now. CD is cheap and easy to duplicate. You add a little loading time, but in the end it is less than you could expect from a PC. In addition, the console CDs are cheaper than PC games. Compare the $45 price of FFVII for the PSX and the $55+ price of the PC version. Console games are getting cheaper too. Many start at $35-$40 now.
PCs set up properly are more like 15x the price. I wish I could get a good PC for $480 these days, but you can't.
EVERY chip has a clock, regardless of it's function or if the clock is utilized as such for the software. It's part of how they're made and used. This is the ONLY reason Y2K might be an issue; if it was just software you could just reboot it and install new settings (the MS-Solution to everything: reboot!!!). Who can say if the Saturn will stop working or not, but it will very likely be affected in SOME way (not to nitpick, but technically it's not a bug ;-) And Y2K is not the millenium (no matter what the TV says). I love semantics!!! Nerdboy am I!!!)
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
last time i heard, PS2 was going to run on a linuxversion, so, i question myself, wil it have a network connection, cause, if it would, and the PS2 will be hacked, on could make a great cluster-puter.
For the price of a car you could make a very fast one indeed
Cyber-Dog
Sega is currently doing better than Nintendo in sales. Plus the new system will be the LAST next generation system to be released. Plus it will alsohave the least amount of time for developers to make new games (hmm, this sounds kinda familiar). So with the way they are handling the new system, it will be thrown together at the last minute, hard to program for, won't support a lot of new features, won't have nearly as much publicity, won't have any games. I can see Nintendo really hurting in the future. Especially after the N64. Talk about a crappy system. A lot of top developers like Namco and Square won't even consider making games for the new system either. If their problems are anything like Sony's then their developement tools will be horrendously expensive and hard to use. Plus you can't release two different systems within the same two or three year stretch. You have to let the first one saturate the market befor moving on to bigger and better things. N64 was the last system to come out. Who wants to bet that if there is a Nintendo after te Dolphin, it will also be the last to the market.
A friend of mine and I waged an endless debate for over 6 years on this very topic. We began with the capabilities of my old pentium 66 vs. the SNES. Then it was the N64 and PS vs. my P166 and PII266. Various factors such as RAM and the N64 memory pack came into play at various points, and we even got down to the nitty gritty of frame rate comparison, polygon counts, game size, and control manners. I feel (naturally) that I won these arguments in most instances, but he was obstinate. I owned both a computer and the consoles, whilst he had only the console games. I felt I was better informed.
The problem we decided was the root is that one cannot make a console superior to a computer without making it into yet another computer. Multitasking, boot sequences, operating systems, all the would require much more of a console than plugging in a game and going. In making a console boot up, and store items in resident memory and caches, we would essentially be negating the only advantage it possesses over PCs-the single task ability. Consoles and PCs will eventually finish their battle, I believe, with PCs on top. However, PCs will be more specific-there will be those of today, for all of us hardcore puter addicts, and those similar in devotion to consoles (ie: gamers only).
Oh, btw. my friend got his PC a few months ago, and after 20 minutes he agreed with me completly on which is better overall;)
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
I think you know which one. It is made by Sega, and uses a Z80 as the main (and only) CPU...
Even my 386 is faster than it.
OK. Maybe racing sims, but definitely no decent flight sims. Way too complex.
Plus many of us play the FPS shooters with a mouse/keyboard combo. I *hate* joysticks (which is essentially what those controllers are) and like to be able to remap the keyboard & mouse to suit my tastes.
*Maybe* consoles will offer a decent challenge when they have keyboard/mouse support (*my* keyboard and *my* mouse), support all those wonderful joystick/wheel/pedal devices that are out there (force-feedback anyone?) *and* offer lots of killer games that aren't available on the PC.
Until then, I'm sticking with my PC + 3dfx card. I'll be content with Q3 and HALO (when they come out) for quite some time to come.
But not only the OS. Gamemakers have to test their software first (so no MS-"It-compiles!-Lets-ship-it"!) cause patching console-software is not possible. Its the same with cars. They would have to call all consoles back or send out millions of new game-cds to do the update.
What I really wonder is, when the first Playstation2-emulator will be available for Linux cause I heared that Linux should be the PS2-development-platform.
We'll see...
The answer is yes, me.
Never seen the Playstation get the resolution on TV that I get on my PC.
Anyway I just use Bleem to play Playstation games on the PC, can you say that for the PS?
Only one problem.. the PCs set up properly cost 4 times as much as a console. However, the cartridges (am I dated this way? ;-) typically cost at least 15-25% more than the PC version.
I haven't bought a console in years. It'll take something serious to get me to buy into that game again.
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...