PCs Losing Out as a Gaming Platform? 778
Snibor Eoj writes "The Boston Globe Online has an article by Hiawatha Bray discussing the state of gaming on PCs and consoles. He points out that PC users now suffer the same fate as Mac users have for years, that of waiting for a great game that's already out on another platform. Consoles continue to gain market share, and software companies are noticing that and writing more and earlier for consoles than for PCs."
well, sure (Score:3, Interesting)
You also don't have to deal with installation issues, device driver conflicts, patches, replacing your $100 soundcard because it causes Neverwinter Nights to crash for no apparent reason, and so forth. Plus all modern consoles have great controllers, whereas PC games can't assume they have access to anything but a keyboard and mouse.
Seriously, what was anyone expecting?
Don't Like Console Gaming (Score:1, Interesting)
Personally I can't stand console gaming. First of all my hands can't take the strain of using the game controllers (and force feedback has no appeal to me). Second of all the games seem more geared to fast-twitch gaming and memorizing arcane sequences of triangle left right up square circle down (no karma points for pointing out what this move does, which i just made up), which doesn't interest me. Finally console gaming lacks a device equivalent to the mouse, for superior aiming and looking around.
I'll wait for games to come on PC, like GTA 3 which I just bought. Somehow I doubt I'm alone. I expect many others are in the same boat. In any case, I think this article overstates the case.
Minimum vs. recommended requirements (Score:3, Interesting)
Somewhere along the way, the number of triangles and polygons determined what kind of game you were going to make. PCs have been gaming lackeys since. Too bad. I really think a creative, resourceful effort could make a buck or two producing games for mid to low end PCs, but then again I'm a hopeless idealist.
Re:FPS's... (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently this happened with Rez, the immersive musical shooter from Sega. Every gamer should own a PS2 and a copy of Rez. Rez is very hard to describe, but it is a beautiful, enchanting experience, one you will never forget. It is a fundamentally different game from what we're used to seeing, especially on the PS2, whose largest genres are extreme sports games, Bandicoot/Jak & Daxter style platformers, big-boobs-and-guns games (think Tomb Raider or Resident Evil), and Square-style RPG's.
It's things like that that make console gaming a worthwhile endeavor. Not to denigrate the PC, which was host to Doom, the first game to ever truly send chills up my spine. But... innovative gaming comes from unexpected places.
Re:Piracy a factor?? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm told that South Korea is almost all PC-based gaming, because of both the institution of PC cafes that act as a nexus of social life (in fact, I think I read that on /.) as well the fact that consoles are associated with the hated Japan.
Still though... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is good for Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course there will be. Joe Consumer buys a Playstation instead of a PC because it's less work to configure and because there's more software available for it -- the exact same reason why he'll buy a Windows OS instead of Linux.
Linux would already have a stronghold in the market if all anyone wanted to do with a PC was surf the 'Net, rip MP3s and send e-mail. But eventually, sooner or later, everyone wants to install Quicken or Deer Hunter, or buy a webcam which says right on the box that WinXP drivers are included.
Mod me as a troll, but it's still true. The very things that are moving game developers from PCs to consoles have always kept software and hardware developers from focusing on the Linux market.
It's not a surprise... (Score:1, Interesting)
The quality of console games will always surpass the quality of PC games as long as PC gamers don't demand anything more than WarCraft, Everquest, and Quake.
And don't talk to me about graphics...you aren't going to be playing Doom 3 in 2 years. But you are gonna be hocking the $400 waffle iron you bought to play it on eBay (you'll be lucky if you get $30.)
I laugh when I think about people who line up to be raped by Carmack's excellent Wallet-Draining adventure. Don't you realize a 2-year-old video card won't work with it? Carmack's such an inept programmer that he can't get anywhere near the graphical prowess of a Mario Sunshine-and why should he even try? You'll pay to play the same old shit, again and again.
Meanwhile, in the console world, people are playing their Mario Sunshine and Grand Theft Auto 3 without worrying about driver conflicts, cheating, etc. Professional programmers actually care about optimizing for the hardware, instead of dumping anybody who got a video card earlier than last month. Truly innovative games like Rez and Frequency are rewarded with high sales, and piracy is much lower (so gaming companies are more inclined to take chances.)
Then again, I hear FreeCell XP is pretty damn good...
(Written with Dreamcast Web Browser V. 3.0)
Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Interesting)
However it doesn't make sense to say that because there are more games being done for consoles therefore the PC as a gaming platform is obsolete.
Console games are more action driven and can be consumed in short sessions: such as racing, fighting, or platform games.
PC games are geared towards longer sessions and complex interaction: such as simulation, strategy or online games.
It's apples and oranges really...
It's going to be interesting to see how consoles perform online, but my guess is that to significantly take online gaming out of the hands of the PC, consoles will have to absorb some of the PC attributes. They've already started with the network adapter and the HD but eventually they'll have to go all the way to the keyboard. Unless some kind of revolutionnary input method comes along first but I don't think that's going to happen.
Anyway, PC games will be there as long as the PC itself.
Let's not forget that from a developper standpoint, the console is to the PC what proprietary software is to Free Software...
But in the end, there's no reason why both plateform couldn't co-exist peacefully.
And you know what? That's exactly what's going to happen...
Mod parent to 5; pretend this story doesn't exist (Score:4, Interesting)
And now we get a bunch of fucking posts about how PC gaming isn't dying, the article is all wrong. No, it is dying, and here's why, I can get a console for $200, video cards are $200, console games are better, PC games suck, Donkey Kong sucks, you suck!
I know, I know. I should just pretend this story doesn't exist, and not read any of the horribly inane comments. But it's like watching a fucking train wreck. Come witness, as the level of discourse on
Re:Better how? (Score:2, Interesting)
While true, how many games out right now take advantage of the GeForce4? Whereas every XBOX game can assume that the player has a set bit of hardware (roughly equiv. to a GF3), virtually all PC games out now only assume the player has at least a TNT2. A couple throw in some extra shader goodies if DO have a better card, but mostly this is just simple superficial effects. On the other hand, a year from now when GF4s are the low end and people are playing Doom3, PCs will have the obvious graphical advantage until the next batch of consoles come out..It goes like that in cycles.
Re:FPS's... (Score:2, Interesting)
I dont see it that way at all... Console makers have to be careful not to make their equipment and software too "complicated" or they risk losing simplicity - the console's main advantage over the PC.
Its a slippery slope... They are already making keyboards for their consoles - a desired move since now players are chatting online via their latest game... But where does it stop? Soon they will have a mouse because more and more first-person-shooters are going on the console, or because its a lot easier to use the level-editor to make a mod. Mods, of course, will require hard-drives - which, as we all know, die out not all that infreqently. Hell, while we are at it, lets allow you to ftp into the machine and upload mp3 files which you can play while you game.
Before too long, you have a full-blown PC gaming experience.
I personally think the two gaming "worlds" should stay seperate... Consoles are perfect for the "in the living room," simple, social gaming experience, and I hope they stay more or less that way in the future.
Consoles, PCs and Macs (Score:2, Interesting)
For consoles, nothing beats sitting on my couch, playing Tetris, Metroid, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Sunshine, Eternal Darkness, Rouge Leader and the others on a nice TV with full surround (ok, so I'm just doubling the L/R channels on the rears for the older games). It completely blows away the PC gaming experience. The new games especially are just beautiful. The UI designers (for the most part) actually put some effort into making sure the game is playable within the constraints of the controller.
Most importantly, I can sit down after a day at work, fire up a console and not have to wait minutes for it to boot up and worry about it crashing or not refreshing fast enough for my hardware: everything just works (which is also why I gave up PCs in favor of Macs).
PC games became pretty dull after the advent of the FPS and RTS genres. For the most part, every new game is a variation on those themes. As far as gameplay is concerned, networked Doom was the peak for FPS and Unreal brought the genere up to 'current' graphic standards (until DNF is released, of course). On the RTS side, my favorite has always been Total Annihilation. Both Unreal and TA are available on the Mac now, which is where I play them.
Two comments on the last platform I play daily: the GBA. First, the platform has forced designers back to simpler games that must be compelling to get played. Gameplay is important and flashy graphics are not. Second, Advance Wars (probably one of the top 5 video games ever developed) has made travelling a very pleasant experience. 12 hours to Sydney, 5 nice battles, didn't even notice the time go by.
Given my experience with games, I'm not at all suprised that platforms are more important than PCs. They offer just more convenience and creative features than a PC can for the casual gamer.
And a quick comment on the costs of a console system compared to a PC: Sony Wega HD $1400-2000, + Game Cube $150, + Sony Surround in a Box (not the best, but gets you started) $300, + Lazy Boy $400: ~$2500. There's no way to get a PC setup that comfortable for that price.
-Chris
Re:well, sure (Score:2, Interesting)
Progressive is where every frame on a screen is drawn all at once by the CRT. This is akin to how film works, where the entire image is shown at the same time.
NTSC is 640x480 (digial) but it's interlaced. Interlacing was developed as a way around several technical limitations when TV was first developed. Interlacing draws every other line for the first 1/60th of a second, then the other lines for the 2/60th of a second, giving TV the apparent FPS rate of 30, with a 60 Hz refresh (origionally timed to US power lines, European TV is 50 Hz timed to European power lines, thus 25 FPS).
This practice of interlacing continues today because of backwards compatibility, despite there being no technical reason to have it anymore.
Interlacing causes an optical effect of making images appear to be about 30% resolute than their actual resolution. Thus, an NTSC interlaced 640x480 signal will appear to about 448x336.
This is why when you plug your computer into a TV set, the video looks quite awful despite being on 640x480. It's also why DVDs look sharper on a PC screen than they do on a TV screen. (Film is 24 FPS, DVDs are encoded with NTSC interlaced at 30 FPS, so when they are re-assembled they retain their 24 FPS crispness on PC screens.)
Thus, even at 640x480, screens will always look more crisp on PC screens than on regular TVs.
HDTV could change that, however, as they have a 720p or 1080p resolutions that games could really work with well and look fantastic on HDTV.
Re:PC vs Console (Score:2, Interesting)
Fallacious arguments (Score:1, Interesting)
The primary issue is that consoles represent a larger market than anything else out there. There may be more PCs in the aggregate, but each console represents a games purchaser -- more, a *repeat* games purchaser. This not only means that more games developers are attracted to that market, but that larger investments by larger companies (a la Kingdom Hearts) are justfied, and that iconoclastic works are more likely to find a profitable following in the larger audience. This, in turn, creates a feedback loop; the most breathtaking *and* most interesting works eventually show up on consoles, spurring more console sales, increasing the incentives for developers.
Of course, to a certain degree, the converse applies. For example, Bungie went from a basement operation in Chicago to the Redmond campus because the intense loyalty of the Mac audience allowed it to achieve an extremely high degree of market penetration. Ambrosia is doing quite well with its recent EV Nova release; user response was so high that it all but literally swamped their office with license key requests. However, such successes are exceptions, not rules.
- Babbler
Re:there is an underlying trend (Score:1, Interesting)
You haven't been paying attention lately. More and more PC-game manufactures are including robust and fully supported editing and modification tools with their games. How many times have you wished that an indea or concept was included in a game, but know one ever seems to get it. You say the golden age of PC-gaming is past, I say it is yet to come. When the average gamer can re-invent a popular game into something new and then you'll be seeing the WOW!! factor more and more often.
There are 2 itches this scratches (Score:2, Interesting)
Secondly, even with Direct this and that, the PC platform is a diverse and difficult platform for that stuff to be developed on. As a consumer I hate checking labels to see if I have this quarter's Nvidia chip so I can play some new game, only to buy it all and then need to upgrade a bunch of crap on the systme before windows will play it. Essentially, I've built 2 woprkstation machines, my work machine and then my game machine because I can't afford to break compilers and such by upgrading something just to play a game. Essentially you're just building a really expensive console.
I'm a geek with a bunch of computers around the house and I've been driven from the gaming market almost, I don't have the time to keep on top of it all, so I bought a PS2 about 18 months ago and I've had a blast. Nothing quite like going to the game store picking out any game that interests you and knowing that it will work without downloading new drivers or buying a new video chip or anything. They're generally good games too, I wish I had a mouse and a keyboard but those problems will be solved. No worries, just buy it and play it. The next round will have digital TV support and then the issue will be even less.
until PCs.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Do consoles need you to know you computers inside out?
Do console games need constant updating/patching?
Can you rent PC games?
Does a PC that can run Halo beautifully cost $199?
Does MS own all of the console world?
Do cosoles require you do know/be a computer nerd?
Do consoles require maintance?
Thats why consoles are popular.
-Eric
Re:Bleh (Score:3, Interesting)
That reminds me of a couple very valid gripes about consoles:
gripe1:
no fan mods to console games (quake would have been nowhere NOWHERE near as impressive if people couldn't make their own levels)
gripe2:
GTA3 (for example) was a great game! it's made an insane amount of money, so they're coming out with "GTA: Vice City", set in the '80's. Neat, right? Yeah. But get this: if it had been a PC game Vice City would be a $20 expansion pack, not a $59.99 (presumably) full-fledged game that is nothing but the exact same game but with new missions and new textures.
Re:Doom III (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:FPS's... (Score:2, Interesting)
The real problem the Xbox has is memory - since it has only 64 megs of unified memory, it generally does not have enough to go any more than 480p without the rest of the game suffering (in most games, anyway). I imagine in the next round of consoles, they'll have enough memory to push the display. The graphics power is already there.
I think it's about profitability (Score:2, Interesting)