I don't think it's an issue of accessibility. I think it's more of a measure of the ability of the general public to implement a certain level of knowledge that is available to them.
For a example: The mouse has been around for nearly two decades and there are people who still have problems executing a double-click.:)
Give it a few more decades.;)
I don't deny that *if* I was referring only to the hardware requirements to convert a machine to a game rig (though we can split hairs by saying a RAM upgrade is needed as well). I'm referring to a larger economic picture.
Just the fact you post here means you have some idea how to upgrade your machine or know that is what you need when you decide to ask someone to do it for you. We are not representative of the general population of the US in this aspect. Most people do not have the knowledge or even care to have it but what they do recognize is the price difference between a console and a game machine. People generally do not make informed choices.
Most folks in the US do have a computer in their home (68% of them do) but to earn that other 32%, they're going to have to drop the price to pander to the poor who can't afford $1,000 or even $299 bucks for a computer. Not to mention the addional costs of operating system, software, upkeep, and repair. The standard economic number for tapping into that demographic is $199. Unless PCs can drop to that baseline price, PCs will never hit that 100% saturation. Think of the way almost every household has a Telelvion. It's an appliance. No thought involved. The corporations objective is saturation of an emerging market with their company's platform. This then sets the playing field for them to focus in on content which helps secure longevity.
Consoles because of their price, their appliance-like nature, and their standard platform all make buisness sense to invest in long term. In every market there will be those who who demand quality from every subtle aspect of their passion and there will be those who don't really care just as long as they get it. The pandering to those who are already "in the know" regarding gaming is coming to a close. The big corps are now casting an eye to those who are intrested but either can't afford it, don't know what to look for, or would rather have a system that is more like an appliance.
For the record, I'm not a proponent for this belief system. It's just the way business is done. We can protest all we want because the choices that the general populace make do not reflect what we, as afficiandos, know as the best choice. I've simply learned to profit from the uninformed choices the world makes to fund the high prices they charge to those of us who do make the informed choices.
I whole heartedly agree with you there. I've predicted for a long time that the console industry will be the provebial bullet in the heart to the PC gaming industry. There will be people who can afford the big gaming rigs and people who can't. Those who can't will buy consoles. Since there are more people who can buy consoles than big rigs, that moves market share attention to them instead of old timers who pour money into the bottomless money pit called our gaming machines.
How it effects the actual gaming titles are also up for grabs. Will there be a two tiered system where you have high end games for PC based platform and a lower end game for console platform? Will the economics of pandering to the diminishing PC market prove to be pointless since it's more profitable in numbers make games for the standard architechture of a console? Does the cost of creating games for the standard architechture of consoles prove more profitable than having to accommodate several hardware configurations of the PC market?
Personally, I think the console market is the "businessman's" way to go. I'm a die hard PC gamer but I see the writing on the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, that's gotta be the best line I've seen all week :)
/me goes to wash the pee stains from the front of his slacks.
Thanks for the great laugh.
I don't think it's an issue of accessibility. I think it's more of a measure of the ability of the general public to implement a certain level of knowledge that is available to them. For a example: The mouse has been around for nearly two decades and there are people who still have problems executing a double-click. :)
Give it a few more decades. ;)
Just the fact you post here means you have some idea how to upgrade your machine or know that is what you need when you decide to ask someone to do it for you. We are not representative of the general population of the US in this aspect. Most people do not have the knowledge or even care to have it but what they do recognize is the price difference between a console and a game machine. People generally do not make informed choices.
Most folks in the US do have a computer in their home (68% of them do) but to earn that other 32%, they're going to have to drop the price to pander to the poor who can't afford $1,000 or even $299 bucks for a computer. Not to mention the addional costs of operating system, software, upkeep, and repair. The standard economic number for tapping into that demographic is $199. Unless PCs can drop to that baseline price, PCs will never hit that 100% saturation. Think of the way almost every household has a Telelvion. It's an appliance. No thought involved. The corporations objective is saturation of an emerging market with their company's platform. This then sets the playing field for them to focus in on content which helps secure longevity.
Consoles because of their price, their appliance-like nature, and their standard platform all make buisness sense to invest in long term. In every market there will be those who who demand quality from every subtle aspect of their passion and there will be those who don't really care just as long as they get it. The pandering to those who are already "in the know" regarding gaming is coming to a close. The big corps are now casting an eye to those who are intrested but either can't afford it, don't know what to look for, or would rather have a system that is more like an appliance.
For the record, I'm not a proponent for this belief system. It's just the way business is done. We can protest all we want because the choices that the general populace make do not reflect what we, as afficiandos, know as the best choice. I've simply learned to profit from the uninformed choices the world makes to fund the high prices they charge to those of us who do make the informed choices.
How it effects the actual gaming titles are also up for grabs. Will there be a two tiered system where you have high end games for PC based platform and a lower end game for console platform? Will the economics of pandering to the diminishing PC market prove to be pointless since it's more profitable in numbers make games for the standard architechture of a console? Does the cost of creating games for the standard architechture of consoles prove more profitable than having to accommodate several hardware configurations of the PC market?
Personally, I think the console market is the "businessman's" way to go. I'm a die hard PC gamer but I see the writing on the wall.