Online Consoles Marginalizing PC Gaming? 603
MattW writes "The gist of this AP/Miami Herald article seems to be that consoles going online will mutate the MMORPG space. Already, there is word that PC game development is withering, even though as a preferential PC gamer I see the best games ever. Is the console destined for superiority, or will the ubiquitous need and superior user input of the PC keep it as a viable game platform?"
Nintendo Entertainment System vs IBM-PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty clear that neither form of gaming is going to "die".
Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant (Score:1, Insightful)
The expensive general desktop computer boom is over. The future growth is in smaller consumer friendly products like iPods, cellphones, and PS2s.
It will eventually take over... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod'ing games, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the consoles can make mod'ing (especially on advanced level like on Operation Flashpoint, mmm I love that stuff) as easy as on PC, PC definitely won't die.
MS's XBox (Score:3, Insightful)
PC (Score:3, Insightful)
Better screens? (Score:3, Insightful)
One could argue that consoles could be gearing towards the above-mentioned advantages too, but wouldn't they inherently be turning into PCs then?
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally prefer PCs, but more and more people are moving away from the computer for things they can get elsewhere. Oh well.
Without PC games (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between PCs and consoles is not the input but rather that PCs don't need a modchip in order to run user-written code (even though unsigned code and signed code run in separate but equal sandboxes in newer restrictions-management-enabled operating systems). Only PCs allow programmers to make games without getting a license from the hardware manufacturer, and console makers tend to grant licenses only to established publishers, reinforcing the oligopoly. Without PC games, how is anybody supposed to begin to learn to develop games?
Thank goodness for Microsoft, then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on what you play (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe not die, but the Big and Almighty PC is going to have a big fall... A PC can be used as a VCR but only nerds do that. Average people like simple (although many don't know how to use the VCR
We will see this trend happen in all fields. Of course , there will be many people that prefer the a multi-purpose tool, but I think that the trend will be make games for consoles and port it for the PC instead of the other way around...
Re:Thank goodness for Microsoft, then... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Two words: LAN party (Score:5, Insightful)
I host a local LAN event and even if/when I've seen consoles at said events, there was only one. No one that I know wants to lug a 32"+ television around. 17" LCD, oh yeah. Shuttle (or comparable mini-) PC - you bet. I can appreciate where console gaming is headed - it's needed to step up to the level of the PC experience for a while. At the same time, console gaming still, INHO, pales in comparison to gaming on a personal computer.
The types of games that I, and most of our LAN attendees, play on a PC are dramatically different than a comparable console title. The Battlefield and UT2k series are beautiful examples. I have friends with Xboxes that hated UT Championship and I can't even fathom trying to play BF on a game pad. These games still harbor mass followings on the PC platform. At the same time, Splinter Cell is amazing on a console, and marginal at best on my PC.
P.S. - Halo PC ran SO horribly on my system (Athlon 2500+, 1GB ram, 256MB Radeon Pro video), that I invoked MS' 30-day money-back guarantee. They were prompt with the refund so, apparently they are good for something. :-P
Disposable Income? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:2, Insightful)
my current machine is a celeron 2.4, 512ram DDR+ radeon 8500 is more than enough to work... but not for gaming...
a PS2, is a gaming machine... unblocked (with especial chip) less than 250 dolars... and runs all the games for it... no more ram isues, no DX dramas.
and for MMORPG, add the harddisk/network card for the PS2 ($120). and voila...
a game console, is a better price/benefit than a computer gaming plataform...
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank goodness for Microsoft, then... (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be the first thing I'd really cheer Microsoft for doing in a long time.
Of course, if XBox2 ends up being PowerPC [theregister.co.uk], that might still make things difficult for the x86 game world. PowerPC isn't merely a different set of opcodes...
Different Demographics (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end, it's all about the games, not the console. Some games, even the multi-platform port releases, just seem to play better on one platform over the other. Madden 2004? I'd rather play it or any other sports games on my PS2. Unreal Tournament 2004 or any other FPS? PC. Warcraft 3 or any other RTS? PC. Button Mashing Fighting Game (Soul Caliber, Tekken) - PS2.
The PC as a gaming platform is far from dead - there's just too many of them in homes for game developers to ignore. Also, most of the biggest console games (GTA3 / Vice City) get ported to the OC, and in the case of GTA3, the graphics are FAR superior on the PC.
Room at The Top (Score:3, Insightful)
The top echelon of PC hardware will ALWAYS offer better performance than the latest console - and a lot of software houses (Lionhead comes to mind) are constantly seeking to push the envelope - not just graphically but in terms of AI and interactivity.
Consoles are great - but no substitute for the power of a screamin' PC box. Sure, PCs can be a pain in the ass to code for because of the mishmash of hardware on the market - but a lot of gamers will build new PCs to experience the best a new title has to offer. Knowing that this audience exists will keep software houses producing for the PC until there are no more games to be played. Nuff said.
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:3, Insightful)
The console systems have an advantage in that everything is set and the game is written for the console, which should remove any compatibility problems. I find this appealing.
Disclaimer - I don't own any consoles and rarely play PC games - my most frequent game (once or twice a week) is Doom, in part because I know my computer is plenty fast enough to run it smoothly under X Windows.
--RJ
Oh great. Another PCs -vs- consoles war (Score:3, Insightful)
- Consoles are social gaming devices, PCs are anti-social. In other words, consoles encourage more than one person playing at the same machine, while PCs are much more solitary. On-line gaming is solitary. Thus, only if consoles transform into dumbed down PCs they would able to marginalize PCs as a gaming device.
- Consoles are living room appliances, PCs are office appliances. There still are games that require a keyboard to play, and believe it or not, there are still lots of gamers who like such games. These games will always remain on PCs.
- Consoles rely on royalties, PCs don't. It's much easier and cheaper do develop low-level games for PCs than for consoles. For example, I spent all this month playing new freeware adventure games, which were released this month only. That's a month worth of gaming for free. Show me a place where I can easily download a bunch of freeware for a console, and show me a way to install it easily. Independent gaming will always be another strong point of PCs, and there are people who like these games.
As a result, consoles and PCs will coexist in the future. PCs would catter to certain games and certain audience, and consoles to others. It's not my place to comment on the quality of the different gaming genres, but my personal preference would lie with the PCs.Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:2, Insightful)
PC was always a casual gaming platform. One games simply because he already has the hardware there in the PC. But buying a $400 graphics card can not be considered casual. This gaming 'requirement' is going to put a significant damper on 3d gaming on PCs if consoles can grab multiplayer gaming correctly.
Much easier to carry an X-box to a LAN party than a PC.
Non-3d intensive games will still flourish on the PC.
Price of console vs. price of graphics card (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple, really (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, I remember loading a relatively simple game on what was once considered an OK laptop. I came to find out that in order to truly have the game running at anything near a fun speed, I had to add RAM, and quite a bit of it. Now the game no longer costed the original $25, but potentially hundreds more. I didn't like it that much. Plus, most PC games I have seen install scads of undesirable adware, spyware, etc. (I'm sure that things have improved on this front, however), and the unending act of cleaning up menus and doing uninstalls of old games I no longer enjoyed (if the uninstalls went smoothly, which often they did not), just got tiresome.
Another, much more minor gripe: keyboard/mouse/joystick setup. I admired some PC games for their flexibility with all the added buttons that a keyboard brings, but having a dozen keyboard overlays and remembering what alt-shift-A does from one game to another seems a bit much to me.
Once again, if you're a PC demigod with a passionately deep understanding for how to clear up these problems, you probably just think I'm dull-witted. However, I'd rather keep my PC as a productivity tool, and buy the occasional console instead of installing card upon card (among other bits that others could more effectively list here) to play similar (if superior) games. As consoles more successfully go online and increase their power and playability, the role of the PC as gaming machine seems more and more to be that of hard-core hobbyists, and not just people who want to play games.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Superior user input on the PC? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more about fitness for a particular purpose. Console controllers are very good for certain kinds of games - platformers, sports games, shooters, etc. I agree that if your universe only consists of FPS, then I think the mouse and keyboard will beat a console's controller (imo). Computers are also well suited for strategy games that involve clicking on units such (both real-time and turn-based).
There's a reason that strategy flourishes on PC and platformers and shooters flourish on consoles.
Consoles are winning... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Support costs: Since consoles are extremely predictable, the customer support costs for making a game work are much lower than on a general purpose PC. If you sell a game for $40, you might make $20 after cost of distribution, and a half hour phone call to get video drivers updated means that you've lost money selling that copy of the game. So if I sell the same number of units on a PC and console, the console games will cost me much less to sell.
- Customer satisfaction: It's easier to play on consoles -- put a disk in and turn the console on. PC's require installation, keyboards aren't as nice to use as joysticks, etc.
- Piracy: Piracy is rare in the console world, and common in the PC world. This effectively shrinks the PC gamer market, making it less attractive to sell games.
- Development costs: it's much easier developing software that runs reliably on a console than all PC's. Sure, the PS2 development tools are weird, but you don't have to worry about testing on a wide range of CPU's, RAM, video cards, etc.
- Not a moving target: In PC game development, one of the hardest tasks is to figure out what a PC will be like at that point in the future where your game will ship, and to engineer for that point. If you guess too high, your game won't run on mainstream PC's. If you guess too low, your game will suck compared to someone else. Sure, there are new generations of consoles, but that's only every five years or so, and always screws up the game market until things stabilize. The PC market is always in the turmoil of change.
- Competition: somewhat counter-intuitively, since the PC market is completely open, there are a near infinite number of games written. This makes it very hard to get your game produced, distributed, and marketed. The last time I saw the numbers, it was around 1 in 100 games that were written got distributed, and 1 in 100 games that were distributed that were profitable. The console market is more controlled, so you don't have to compete against a flood of random programs to get noticed.
So while the PC game market will always be around, for lots of good reasons, it'll become (IMO) more and more games in a couple of niches:
- Gamer geek games that appeal to the high-end gamers willing to pay $3K for a machine to run better than a $200 console.
- Weird games that can't get distributed on the consoles. Some of these will be very cool, and get ported to consoles to make the real money.
- Ports of the 'hit' console games, to make a little money. I think that companies will "port to the PC" for the same reasons that they "port to the Mac" -- if it's a hit game, you can make some money selling into smaller markets.
The PC is here to stay. (Score:2, Insightful)
It implies that MMPs are the only type of games still being played on PC, which is dumb. Not only that, it also states that "their growth appears almost stagnant" which is, of course, completely false [netcom.com].
I'm a game developper working on MMPs.
I've been hearing about the demise of the PC as a gaming platform for *years*.
Every year brings its new fad : consoles, cell phones, set top boxes, PDAs, next-gen consoles, online consoles, you name it...
And you know what ?
The PC is still alive and kicking.
And you know why ?
Because as long as PCs are bought, some people will want to buy games to play on them, and some developpers will want to take advantage of a free platform.
A platform where they don't need to beg for development kits.
A platform where they don't have to pay a for the privilege of releasing a game.
A platform where they are free to develop whatever game they wish without going through the hoops of "concept approval" (going through the hoops of a publisher is bad enough).
A platform where their imagination isn't restricted by the DRM crap that console makers are going to shove down everybody's throat.
So maybe all the big action/sports/movie franchise will keep moving on consoles. And who cares really? It's all the same old, boring stuff anyway.
But I'm pretty sure you'll keep on seeing original, cool games appearing on the PC first. And it won't be just the MMP games...
Here's a couple of [trackmaniagame.com] links [tqworld.com] to prove my point.
The day the PC as a gaming platform dies, is the day the PC dies.
Hardware Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point, remember 3DFX? Great hardware, great software interface, great linux support. Lousy longevity. They are gone, swallowed up by Nvidia. So all of the games that worked great on my voodoo 3 card now absolutely stink with an equivalently priced Nvidia card (maybe if I buy a newer card)
My point is not to bash nvidia, but to emphasize that the games that worked great with voodoo were specifically coded to take advantage of that card, and because of that, would almost have to make other cards look bad. If I had purchaced games that were coded for nvidia, then i would have seen the exact opposite effect.
Now what is the development team to do? Re code software so that every single video card is supported? Rotsa ruck. As soon as it goes gole, there will be 30 more cards that aren't in the package that will require the patch to be downloaded.
Contrast this to ANY console. Sure, I can purchase much better hardware for a PC, but every console developer knows exactly what hardware he/she is coding for, and doesn't have to waste 6 man-years coding for multiple cards. Everything works. Performance is squeezed out of those machines to the nth degree.
I don't think that this will mean either platform will 'die' but until video card developers come up with a 'consensus' set of api's that developers can code for, then it will always seem that the user will need a custom pc to for each game to get the best performance out of that particular title.
Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea...
Why I love my PS2 (Score:2, Insightful)
The only advantage to the PC as a gaming platform is for games like Sim City where lotsa menus are unavoidable and there is so much detail that the resolution of a computer monitor is NECCESARY. Also the raw crunching power of a relatively up to date computer is needed for simulation style games.
Fsck microsoft. They are fixing to 'merge' the PC with the console. This will make the console prone to bugs and make the PC into a black box that I can't do what I want on. "Sorry I can't play Mario Bros because I caught a virus from an email and now I have to reformat my game system. My WinBox OS CD is scratched so I have to buy another one because their damn DRM didn't let me make a backup copy." Yeah right.
Not to call out the trolls, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The PC's viability as a gaming rig, as best as I can tell, rests on two traits: superior display technology (via hi-resolution displays), and superior control in some games, via a mouse/keybaord setup.
Think about that... the PC's viability rests upon a rapidly-closing gap in display technology (see: HDTV), and $10 peripheral (and even at that, I think if half the people shrieking about the loss of control with dual analog would actually give it a fair shot, they're see that's not the case; I mean, how long did it take to get good with a kb/mouse in the first place?).
So, what we'll have in a few years are:
PCs:
Pros:
+Multi-function
+Large back catalog of games that may or may not actually work
Cons:
-Hideously expensive in terms of upkeep (hardware)
-Game-breaking driver and hardware-related problems
-Expensive OS required in addition to expensive hardware
-Notorious for buggy releases with players essentially paying money to do QA work for publishers, and devs with a "we might fix problems later" mentality.
Consoles:
Pros:
+Comparitively inexpensive
+Works with already-ubiquitous displays
+Little to no hassle to play games; consoles just work (for the most part... Ubi can't seem to get it right)
+Excellent performance due to standardized hardware
Cons:
-Can't play games based around bleeding edge hardware.
So what's left? Online play? Xbox Live blows away anything the PC's ever seen. Give it another generation to clean up the UI and make a few other minor improvements, and online gaming via PC will feel downright archaic.
The point is, considering the cost and issues inherent in PC gaming, and the console market rather swiftly nullifying the PC's few advantages, what possible reason could there be for the continuation of the PC as a gaming platform?
Don't count your chickens (Score:2, Insightful)
PC games can also be much, much bigger due to greater storage capacity. Yes, the XBox has a hard drive, but it's already been out a while and the rumor is that the XBox 2 won't have one. The PS2 just got a hard drive in the US, but that system is already passed the middle of its life-span, so fewer games will take full advantage of a hard drive.
In the more distant future though (say the next decade or two) I do ultimately see computers, gaming consoles, televisions and telephones merging. Already computers are used for all of those things, but not yet by everyone. Of course, this still means the PC will have won over consoles and not the other way around
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand this attitude at all. Controllers are just peripherals. Given that they have a slowly standardizing interface (heck the PS2 has USB and the Xbox has mutant USB of a sort), you should be able to get all the control you want on any console. On top of that, all the modern consoles have configuration modes that come up when you boot without a game. This seems like a very easy problem to solve.
I'm the proud owner of a Thrustmaster HOTAS/Cougar, quite possibly the sexiest stick-and-throttle set ever to be released for the PC. Its a USB device. Let's just imagine a future console's input interface allowing for a 110 button controller, with 10 axes. Sure, the average game pad (like a PS2 controller) would only use 16 buttons and four axes. But under this scheme, I could attach any USB controller (like my Cougar) and make full (or near full) use of it. Most games would be written to use far fewer than the maximum allowable controls. This, however, would allow for more games to be played effectively on consoles without having to dumb down the controls (or to give the player a choice between dumbed down 'console' controls or a richer, more complex 'PC' style control scheme).
Further, such a setup would allow for migration of controllers to and from consoles, easily. Steel Battalion has a sexy, beautiful controller set (though not as sexy as my Cougar!), which I wouldn't mind having for playing mech style games on my PC.
Meh. Perhaps I'm asking for too much. I still want Windows to see all game controllers as subsets of a ridiculously over buttoned, over axised uber game controller, so I wouldn't have to pick just one controller for each game. That'll never happen.
Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately (Score:2, Insightful)
How about doing something real! (Score:1, Insightful)
money it costs, get outside and DO something!!!
You like shoot 'em up games, there is paintball.
You like fantasy worlds, there are CON's and
renasance festivals, heck even swinger parties.
You like to fly, there is RC, and Ultralights,
and even building your own plane and flying it
is pretty cheap.
Yes, games have a bunch of technology, but imagine
being able to feel as well as you hear and see
the action!
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:2, Insightful)
"Like FFX" is the key phrase. The difference is minimal because that particular game was developed with multiple platforms in mind. Think "lowest common denominator".
Try to port something like Neverwinter Nights to a console and you'll see just how "minimal" the differences can get. Or if you want a real-world example, just compare Deus Ex to Deus Ex Invisible War.
One thing no one ever mentions when the whole console vs. PC gaming debate comes up is whether or not you can actually get any gaming done on your PC. I know myself that I have a tendency to want to check my E-mail, oh and then there's a website I need to read, and I need to burn this CD, etc. until all of a sudden it's too late to do any gaming. If I go to the living room the PC's not there and I can actually forget about it and play games on my PS2 for hours on end.
I have the opposite problem; I can't motivate myself to go "jack out" since I know the console can only play games. I like the ability to stop working, drop into a BFV game for 10 minutes then exit and immediately resume. I like being able to check e-mail and read websites at leisure!
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's a gf2mx, so I can't play it with all the pretty effects, but that doesn't mean I can't be competitive and have some fun with a decent game.
So lets break it down. $200 to play a console that ONLY does console, or $500 to use a machine that I can modify to my liking, use for work and play, has better graphics (TV is still stuck at NTSC unless you're willing to shell out $$$ for HDTV, and that TOTALLY shifts things back in favor of the PC), and can play mods, which are arguably a better value than the game itself.
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Old School (Score:2, Insightful)
Games like Final Fantasy Tactics, as much fun as they might be, aren't vanilla strategy games, in the genre sense.
Credit Cards are Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
As another poster pointed out, one fact is that while unemployment is high, there are still a good number of people with jobs.
The other thing to factor in, though, is that in the US, most people aren't as financially responsible as they should be. We love using our credit cards to spend money we don't have. It almost seems as if we think there's something wrong with saving money in this country. And our federal government is leading the charge.... Last time I heard numbers, the reports indicated that over 50% of households live paycheck-to-paycheck. Now, there are probably some people who are spending their money on essentials, but I imagine there are more than a few people spending beyond their means on leisure items, such as a video games.
The answer is: Neither (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:3, Insightful)
Please... consoles are great for mindless gaming, but graphics is not their forte.
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's Evolution, We've seen it before (Score:3, Insightful)
It'll be really interesting to see how Nintendo fares in all of this. They've steadfastly refused to build anything more than game machines. This isn't all bad, but it does make them look a bit behind the times.
One of the best things to come out of all of this will be easier to use devices. Games are supposed to be fun. So ease of use must be a main focus, which has not always been the case for the PC. So with multipurpose consoles developing, we should also see better and easier to use interfaces.
Superior UI? (Score:3, Insightful)
A superior UI is one that is very easy to figure out, and lets the user do anything that the game can let them do without it being awkward.
Consoles arguably have an edge because using a D-Pad or Joystick is very intuitive. And fewer buttons typically means that the UI is easy to figure out.
PC's have an edge in that for games that require alot of unique inputs or menu interaction, since a Mouse was specifically designed to point and click. (Which is why RTS games play better on a PC).
If you think that a PC offers superior input, it is probably because you tend to prefer the kinds of games that play better using a Mouse.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Console interaction (without a keyboard) will pretty much end the "social" aspect of gaming, IMO.
One thing nobody seems to take into account (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:5, Insightful)
I play a mix of RTS, RPG and FPS games, and when I play, I want to be sitting comforably at my desk, with my monitor a sharp 1280 x 1024, not on my couch hunched over my coffee table squinting at my low rez tv.
Using a mouse and keyboard in my living room would be an excercise in frustration and back pain.
Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, a keyboard has a secondary function - you can use it to quickly enter letters, or so I've heard.
Another place where the PC games win is in strategy and tactics. Playing something like Civilization without a mouse would really be terrible.
This doesn't mean consoles *can't* do these things. Keyboards for consoles can be made, and are being made, actually. Newer consoles like the Xbox are actually PC's on the inside, with hard drives and everything, so you can save games in a sane way with lots of context, instead of on a tight memory card that can only store crude data, and therefore limits what you can affect in the game. (If the savegame can only hold a tiny number of variables, then that limited number of variables is essentially all you can change about the gameworld - which is why strategy games on consoles have traditionally sucked - there's too mnuch context to try to fit it on the memory card unless you dumb down the game.)
Anyway, consoles *could* fix these failings, but they don't seem to actually be doing it in practice. In practice, "this game was designed for consoles" ends up involving not only designing the game for the console's hardware, but also designing it for the console's target audience - which is people who prefer a style of play that I don't like as much. (But it's still fun in a different way - it's just not as MUCH fun. Splinter Cell was great, but it doesn't hold a candle to Deus Ex or Thief for what it was trying to do. The Dark Clouds and the Final Fantasies are great, but they don't come close to the richness of RPG's on computer (and no, I don't mean MMORPG - I mean things like Arcanum and Fallout.)
About the only style of game that is better on consoles is the "small groupd of friends play the same game in front of the same TV" kind of games, since you can plug in multiple controllers.
Things like platform jumpers are about a wash - Tomb Raider was about the same of PC as on consoles.
Another thing to remember is that consoles take Extreme advantage from the fact that they are going to be output to a TV screen, and TV screens are very low-res. They aren't actually any faster than PC's in their graphics. It's just that PC gamers don't typically try to play with a vertical resolution of only 400 lines.
Re:Not to call out the trolls, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of the games are targetted towards 15-18 yr. olds who think they are 25. Games requiring deep thinking and an attention span (Final Fantasy has little strategic/tactical depth) rarely see the light of day on a console that is not the GBA (compare the GBA's strategy titles to those on the PS2).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Mods is all I have to say (Score:2, Insightful)
So OK the PS2 may of had GTA:VC first but I can play it against my friends or download mods to give me new weapons, cars etc...
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:3, Insightful)
-
the console pales in every imaginable way.
Well your first statement isn't quantifiable, there are many ways consoles are better than PCs (especially for developers who don't have to worry about supporting anything except a certain set of hardware, so hardware compatibility problems are rare), and plenty where PCs are better than consoles. Saying one is better no matter what shows a horrid bias to what you're saying, especially when backed up with no facts. Not trying to rip you, but think about these things and people will pay more attention to your posts. (Of course you're posting anonymously so you might not care about whether anyone pays much attention to your posts.)and with a really decent gaming PC as low as $500 (everyone already had an existing monitor no?) the console is not much cheaper.
As far as a decent gaming rig being $500, umm, yeah, and it'll not be able to play the latest games in about a year tops, unless you start turning so many features off to get a decent frame-rate that it looks awful. A decent one that can (hopefully) last you three years (standard industry turn-over rate on computers for businesses at least) will set you back at least $2000, perhaps less if you have a kick-ass monitor & speakers already. Even then unless you have the latest and greatest video card in it (~$500), you may find yourself needing at least a video card upgrade (another ~$500 for the latest and greatest) before three years are up.
The expense with PC gaming is that games continue to push the latest hardware, requiring you to buy the latest and greatest hardware regularly or you get left behind. Yes, they'll still run, but you have to turn a lot of stuff off, or your frame-rate makes it look like a slide-show. Then you're not getting all the spiffy visuals and resolution you're wanting. With the consoles the hardware is fixed. Yes, that means as the console's life wears on it's abilites seem to pale, but then again about 2-3 years into a console's life has historically been when games start appearing that really push the abilities of it. Right now the PS2 has a few coming out (Gran Turismo 4 for instance) that have graphics many thought were impossible for the console.
In any case, the console's a LOT cheaper since you don't have to worry about upgrading the hardware in it over its life cycle. Even when you buy the next-gen console, they've traditionally been no more than ~$300 when they first come out, a good $200 less than the PC price you mention (which I still doubt would be capable of keeping up with gaming demands for more than a year). You can also do like I do and wait till the price drops to get one and also have a huge library of games ready by that time.
Re:Not to call out the trolls, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Moreover, don't you upgrade to new consoles to play bleeding edge console games? You justify buying the next generation console, but condemn PC upgrades?
As long as people have PCs, why not play games? Why not create games for this market?
PCs:
Pros:
+Console Emulation
+Create mods
+Each mod becomes a new game
+Strategy, RTS, and sim games
+Better looking games (more power)
+Better resolution
+Online/LAN play without split screen seizures
+Scalable (Freedom to upgrade)
Consoles:
Cons:
-Linear games
-Locked-in addons
-Permanent bugs
-Static performance (cannot upgrade, even cheaply)
-Doesn't work with monitors
-difficult to back up games (without hardware mods)
-It's why they called it a con-sole