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.
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.
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.
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.
--