I know there is a price difference between the new consoles and PCs. But the question was this:
"Is there a terrible price difference between purchasing a console instead of a PC, particularly when you consider the limited applications of a console, and the expandability and flexibility of a PC?"
I'm guessing what you're saying is, people can see a price difference between a PC and a console, yet don't take into account the far "more" they're getting with a PC, or are simply too poor to afford another PC, or to upgrade their own when it lags behind the times (just as consoles do).
So to understand, console manufacturers are taking computers, making them proprietary by whiddling down things that make it not a PC, passing that hardware savings along to the end users, charging software authors to write and sell things for their hardware, and locking in end users to their and their partner's product offerings.
Whereas console manufacturers would become redundant and game authors could all have a single platform and save their licensing/royalty expensese if PC prices were a little cheaper, or people were willing to pay more for a PC to get more.
I wonder how many people buy thier kids both PC's AND consoles?
I wonder what games might be like if software authors were not so constrained?
I wonder if software authors would make less money if consoles did not exist?
I'm not really clear about why console machines and games exist.
It seems that console games exceed PC games sales -- that much is sensible.
But I wonder why the trend exists to develop games for a fragmentary market, like the console market, when the PC market is pretty well standardized.
When you develop for a fragmented market of course you will run into all kinds of problems. Technical problems, creative problems associated with the technical, and by degrees money problems.
Though I know little of the details of the gaming industry, I have to wonder how it's reached this state. Is it true that game authors must also pay large licensing fees to console manufacturers, in addition to all the other costs they incur when developing?
Why would they do this when a standardized platform exists that requires no licensing fees (the PC)? Why would they do this when that standardized platform offers all the capabilities, and much more capabilities, than a given console? In doing so, how does that help them be more innovative? Or does the innovation come mostly only from the console manufacturers who create specialized, limited and sometimes optimized hardware?
Is there a terrible price difference between purchasing a console instead of a PC, particularly when you consider the limited applications of a console, and the expandability and flexibility of a PC?
Or has the game authoring industry "bought in" to the console manufacturer's competitions amongst each other, at great cost to themselves?
If innovation is the goal, why would you choose to create upon something defined in scope by others, and more limited than other possibilities?
If money is the goal, it does not seem surprising they face the problems they now do.
Slashdot Mirror
I know there is a price difference between the new consoles and PCs. But the question was this:
"Is there a terrible price difference between purchasing a console instead of a PC, particularly when you consider the limited applications of a console, and the expandability and flexibility of a PC?"
I'm guessing what you're saying is, people can see a price difference between a PC and a console, yet don't take into account the far "more" they're getting with a PC, or are simply too poor to afford another PC, or to upgrade their own when it lags behind the times (just as consoles do).
So to understand, console manufacturers are taking computers, making them proprietary by whiddling down things that make it not a PC, passing that hardware savings along to the end users, charging software authors to write and sell things for their hardware, and locking in end users to their and their partner's product offerings.
Whereas console manufacturers would become redundant and game authors could all have a single platform and save their licensing/royalty expensese if PC prices were a little cheaper, or people were willing to pay more for a PC to get more.
I wonder how many people buy thier kids both PC's AND consoles?
I wonder what games might be like if software authors were not so constrained?
I wonder if software authors would make less money if consoles did not exist?
But of course, they do.I'm not really clear about why console machines and games exist.
It seems that console games exceed PC games sales -- that much is sensible.
But I wonder why the trend exists to develop games for a fragmentary market, like the console market, when the PC market is pretty well standardized.
When you develop for a fragmented market of course you will run into all kinds of problems. Technical problems, creative problems associated with the technical, and by degrees money problems.
Though I know little of the details of the gaming industry, I have to wonder how it's reached this state. Is it true that game authors must also pay large licensing fees to console manufacturers, in addition to all the other costs they incur when developing?
Why would they do this when a standardized platform exists that requires no licensing fees (the PC)? Why would they do this when that standardized platform offers all the capabilities, and much more capabilities, than a given console? In doing so, how does that help them be more innovative? Or does the innovation come mostly only from the console manufacturers who create specialized, limited and sometimes optimized hardware?
Is there a terrible price difference between purchasing a console instead of a PC, particularly when you consider the limited applications of a console, and the expandability and flexibility of a PC?
Or has the game authoring industry "bought in" to the console manufacturer's competitions amongst each other, at great cost to themselves?
If innovation is the goal, why would you choose to create upon something defined in scope by others, and more limited than other possibilities?
If money is the goal, it does not seem surprising they face the problems they now do.