Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PC Games (Games)

Will Next-Gen Consoles Kill Off PC Gaming? 1214

Posted by Zonk
from the death-knell dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNET is predicting that next-generation consoles will drive the final nails into the already half-closed coffin of mainstream PC gaming. The root of their argument isn't one of power, but of price: 'The bottom line is that console manufacturers often heavily subsidize their new machines, swallowing huge losses up front in hopes that they'll make it all back selling games... Other things being equal, the DIY-heavy PC gaming industry can't hope to compete in that kind of market.' Which is to say that once the 18-34 demographic starts buying $400 PS3s instead of $400 video cards, developers may have no choice but to follow suit." Will there still be a market for PC games, or are the graphics of the next generation of consoles going to make PC games unnecessary?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Next-Gen Consoles Kill Off PC Gaming?

Comments Filter:
  • Tell me again (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mboverload (657893)
    ...Why video cards cost 400 dollars when you can get a WHOLE CONSOLE with DVD drive and custom hardware for the same price?
    • Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)

      by toddestan (632714) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:22PM (#12714765)
      You know, you can buy video cards that are well under $100 that have enough power to play any PC game out there. Only a fool spends $400 on a video card for their home gaming rig.
      • Re:Tell me again (Score:4, Insightful)

        by davew2040 (300953) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:32PM (#12714962) Journal
        You know, some people value visual quality enough to justifiably shell out the money without being fools. You're correct in your assessment that cheap cards exist for casual gamers, but then you decided to be a jerk.
      • Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ultramk (470198) <ultramk AT pacbell DOT net> on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:48PM (#12715198)
        My father in law spends a lot more than that on a golf club... Hell, the greens fees here are over $300 (with a discount).

        If you can't afford it, sure, it's a waste. If you can, and this is how you choose to enjoy yourself, why not?

        m-
      • by SpecialAgentXXX (623692) on Friday June 03, 2005 @01:17PM (#12715617)
        There goes the usual /. response again: "You know, you can buy video cards that are well under $100 that have enough power to play any PC game out there. Only a fool spends $400 on a video card for their home gaming rig."

        Know what? I bought the BFG 6800 Ultra when it first came out and Half-Life 2 running in 1600x1200 on my LCD display looks friggin awesome with all of the eye candy turned on. In fact, all games look awesome compared to when I used to play them with my old $100 card. Don't knock it just because you can't afford it.
        • It all depends on which end of the gaming spectrum you are looking at. The High end, hard core gamers have no problem dumping US$8k on a water cooled, dual SLI 6800 ultra rig. They want the best and they have the $$$ for it. There is no way a console going at $300 can even come close to that performance level. All consoles will always take a backseat to its big brother the PC. When a console can do 1920x1200 resolution (my standard gaming resolution), a PC will be able to do more with 40K+ rigid bodies. Its
          • There is no way a console going at $300 can even come close to that performance level.

            Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Your computer spends most of its time waiting for you. The most expensive video card in the world isn't going to change that performance level.

            • Yeah. Get process explorer from sysinternals, and turn on CPU time used by processes and get ready for an eye opener.

              I've had Opera 8.01 running + proxomitron and browsing on and off for about 5 hours here. Guess how much CPU time it used?

              Opera : 1 Minute 39 Seconds.
              Prox : 2 Minutes 26 Seconds.

              That's it. In fact, aside from the system, Process explorer has used the most CPU time, though I've been running that for about 12 hours.

              And it has used : 15 Min 46 Seconds.

              So, your PC spends A LOT OF TIME wait
      • by cbreaker (561297) on Friday June 03, 2005 @01:41PM (#12715879) Journal
        If you're broke and can't spend the money, then don't. But don't call me a fool because I want everything I run to be very nice and fluid.

        Especially because my LCD native is 1920x1200, I want a high end card. I won't pay $1000 on one, but I did pay close to $400 for my BFG 6800GT card when they first came out.

        Now, I can skip at least one new major GPU release from both ATI and nVidia, and still have plenty of power to play the games, if I wanted to. Sure, I could buy a $200 card now, and then another $200 in another year.. Might as well pay $400 now and have cutting edge for awhile, right?

        Every time a new game console hits the market, there's another story about how it will kill PC gaming. It's not going to happen. It never has, and it never will.

        When the first Xbox and the PS2 hit the shelves, they were touted as "PC Game killers" just the same. The hardware was strong and easily could compete with what PC's had going at the time. Then, six months passed, and PC games easily out-gunned consoles in terms of sound, graphics, and speed.

        Will anything be different this time around? I don't think so. The XBox 360 has three PowerPC chips in it, or a multi-core CPU, or whatever. It's got a (currently) top of the line ATI chip in it for video. This machine will be very cool, but multi-core CPU's and SLI technologies are already making strong headway on PC's now.

        Do you really think the Xbox 360 will be more powerful then a high end PC a year later? I don't.

        Don't get me wrong, I like game consoles. I've owned the Xbox for a long time, and I still use it (although this could be because it's modded and a modded xbox is the shit) and there's some games that are only fun if you play them on a gamepad in front of the TV with some friends.

        PC Gaming will be around for as long as people keep buying PC's for gaming. Visit any of the big PC gaming forums and you'll find the most active (albiet annoying) forums on the Internet.

        No, the PC games will keep coming.
        • First of all, ignore Yahoo! games etc., because that's a different market, and no one buys a PC specifically for Yahoo! Games (I hope).

          1. You need A-list titles like Half-Life to sell PC gaming rigs, garner interest, make big money.
          2. The last half-life took YEARS to develop, and there's nothing wrong with the development team.
          3. Game graphics will flat-line to the point you can't tell real TV from videogame TV.
          4. The new consoles are on High-Def- often higher Def than computers.
          5. More people are buying l
    • Re:Tell me again (Score:3, Interesting)

      by baryon351 (626717)
      Because a year after the console is released, when its hardware is now old-spec and new PC hardware is still right at the bleeding edge, the PC will out-game the console.

      Two years after the console is released it'll be an even wider difference, and 3 years after it'll be incomparable
      • For this theory to be correct, we should be at a sweet spot for PC gaming right now. I wonder if the charts agree.
      • Re:Tell me again (Score:3, Insightful)

        by advocate_one (662832)
        wow... you must really enjoy the upgrade treadmill... me, I enjoy the fact that a game for my console will work... and I don't have to piss about finding the latest drivers for my hardware or downloading a massive patch for the game a few weeks after the release...
      • Re:Tell me again (Score:4, Interesting)

        by adam31 (817930) <adam31&gmail,com> on Friday June 03, 2005 @01:15PM (#12715593)
        While the hardware on consoles is locked, you see constantly improving technology on consoles as developers figure out how to use it to its fullest. This is especially true on the PS2, where the quality of technology has resembled the years-long learning curve.

        The next-generation will be even more dramatic, both in the disappointing launch titles, and in the shocking improvement over the next 5 years.

        PCs will always be anchored by widespread adoption of legacy systems, but this can be an advantage for them. The next-generation of console games will cost so much money to develop and cost so much to the consumer, that this opens up a big market in low-cost not-bleeding-edge PC gaming. That's the direction I see their future going.

        After all, there are many more PCs than consoles in the world.

    • ...Why video cards cost 400 dollars when you can get a WHOLE CONSOLE with DVD drive and custom hardware for the same price?

      Because your brand new $400 video card is much better than your 3 year old $400 game console that won't be upgraded for another two years.

    • There are a few clear advantages to an expensive PC like the superior graphics and user interface the keyboard & mouse. Though I did enjoy hooking up my ps2 controller to my machine for flying in bf1942. Also I'm sure you will agree that a computer overall is far more usefull than a console. So I see it as not building a PC instead of buying a console, but putting a few extra bucks into the PC I'm building to make it all the more powerful. These are surface issues though. To me the main reason that the
    • Marketing.

      ( I'm not certain about which direction, though. Does marketing make a 100 dollar card seem to be worth 400? Or does marketing allow a 1000 dollar console to be sold for 400? The answer is probably both. )
    • Why video cards cost 400 dollars when you can get a WHOLE CONSOLE with DVD drive and custom hardware for the same price?

      For one thing, console makers subsidise these boxes heavily so the PS3 and XBox 360 may well sell at $100-$200 losses to start with.

      The other reason is this - when nVidia makes a new card for the PC market, do they know how many they will sell? No. So they have to price the card high to make it worthwhile to pay for initial manufacturing and R&D costs.

      With GFX chips for something
  • by FortKnox (169099) * on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:21PM (#12714741) Homepage Journal
    Lets put it this way:
    Consoles will take over PC gaming when they get the advantages of PC Gaming like bigger harddrives, better memory, better quality graphics...
    And to get that, what do they have to be? Modern day PCs with rigid hardware. Basically a laptop.

    I'm guessing within the next 5 generations, the console and PC market will converge...
    • I don't think 5 generations myself. I see more 2-3. But I think you're on the right track.

      Technologies are changing and converging all the time. Things don't die in many cases - they're adsorbed, modified, extended, or cloned.
    • I'm guessing within the next 5 generations, the console and PC market will converge...

      And then which will be left? Will the result be best called a "console", or a "Personal Computer".

      I am afraid it will end up as a console, without the computer part. A PC, by definition, allows the user great control to run (arbitrarily defined) computations. Video game consoles have a tendency for a monopoly gatekeeper to prohibit all but a small number of carefully examined programs to run on the system.

      It might b
      • by some damn guy (564195) on Friday June 03, 2005 @05:11PM (#12717898)
        I think the PC is safe. It may seem simple to for a console to replace, in the near future, what PCs do today for most people. However I think people will still buy PCs because of their flexibility. Why is this important? Because some of the things that people will choose PCs over consoles for in the future haven't been invented yet.

        The PC does not need to wait until Sony or even Microsoft decides what the next big thing is. Remember at the height of the internet boom when so many people were predicting that thin clients would kill the PC? The death of the PC has been predicted many times before- even hoped for by companies wanting to stomp competitors, but it's ability to do the newest stuff first has always been it's edge. The invisible hand of the marketplace can still smack even the biggest companies around given the slightest chance.

        Even if consoles catch up in the graphics department, don't think for a second that the PC has run out of tricks. People are fixated on graphics because they have seen such dramatic improvements lately. Eventually these will be less so and something new will take it's place, as is always the case with technology. Physics processing maybe? If I knew for sure I'd be rich, but SOMETHING will be next. And when the next big thing comes out don't doubt where it will be first.
    • by artemis67 (93453) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:33PM (#12714976)
      Console gaming is for those who just want a plug-and-play gaming experience at a reasonable cost.

      PC gaming is never going to go away. Simply put, there is an installed base of several hundred million users. Is any rational CEO of a software company (gaming or otherwise) simply going to pack up and leave all that money on the table? Absolutely not.
      • Console gaming is for those who just want a plug-and-play gaming experience at a reasonable cost.

        PC gaming is never going to go away. Simply put, there is an installed base of several hundred million users. Is any rational CEO of a software company (gaming or otherwise) simply going to pack up and leave all that money on the table? Absolutely not.


        And it is less costly and complicated to devellop for PC than for console, you don't have the console approval process to get through, which means less hassle,
    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:44PM (#12715144) Homepage Journal
      "Modern day PCs with rigid hardware. Basically a laptop."
      Take a good look. Modern PCs are heading that way also. The Mac Mini is a good example.
      I think you are right about convergence but the wrong way. I see the "home" entertainment PC going away. People that need a home office will keep them but everyone else will use there consoles.
      Any bets on when the PS3 supports iTunes and the iPod?, Dumping pictures from your Sony digital camera? Printing your pictures on an Sony printer? Downloading DRMd video and downloading it to your PSP?
      Any bets on when the Xbox 360 will allow you to download DRMd music and video?
      Add a bluetooth keyboard and mouse to any of them and you could have that mythical "grandmother" system that everyone talks about. You know the one that is only used for surfing the web and email? A Playstation3 with a browser, email client, and OpenOffice, Quicken, and TurboTax would what about 99% of what people use home computers for. They would also be pretty hard to write a virus or malware for.

      I for one hope it does not happen. I am old school. If I can not write code for it then I do not consider it my computer. That is not the way of the world today I am afraid. What % of people even on Slashdot write any code?
    • by M.C. Hampster (541262) <M...C...TheHampster@@@gmail...com> on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:55PM (#12715301) Journal

      Consoles will take over PC gaming when they get the advantages of PC Gaming like bigger harddrives, better memory, better quality graphics...

      If by "take over" you mean "have more players", you're way too late. Console gaming already has overtaken PC gaming in terms of the # of gamers. It did a long time ago :-)

      If by "take over" you mean completely destroy, I doubt this will ever happen. I disagree why though. A "bigger" hard drive does nothing to enhance the gaming experience. Especially considering the next generation looks to start at a 20GB size. What more does one need if you don't have to install the game like you do on a PC? Better memory? What does that buy you other than perhaps your next point of "better quality graphics"? Yeah, the PC will probably continue to stay slightly ahead in the graphics arena, but it comes at a hefty price. For me, the graphics I get on my XBox and GameCube are pretty much "good enough".

      The real reason I think that consoles will never compltely destroy the PC market is the input. Real-time strategy games are an example of this. It's gonna be difficult to play one without a mouse. Now, a DS hooked up wirelessly to a Revolution is a possiblility, but ultimately it requires purchase of two hardware devices, which means game manufacturers aren't likely to create many games in that genre.

    • Consoles will take over PC gaming when they get the advantages of PC Gaming like bigger harddrives, better memory, better quality graphics...

      Why do you need a bigger HD for gaming? You do not, as long as game loading times are not noticable it does not matter. The HD can act as a local cache and if you can store 30 games+ worth of save data what more do you need?

      As for the other things - look at the specs. The consoles have super-fast RAM, and don't need as much because there's no OS to support. 512
  • by aardwolf204 (630780) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:21PM (#12714744)
    I'd just like to mod this article -1 Flamebait.

    Thank you,
    Slashdot Reader
  • by suso (153703) * on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:21PM (#12714749) Homepage Journal
    IMHO, the problem has never been about price, performance or convience (well, maybe a little). Its been mainly about titles. What games are actually available and if those games are solely for a specific platform. In the early 80s, Ataris were nice, but lost their luster with the availability of the C64. In the late 80s, most of the best games available where for the console systems, in the early 90s we started to see a switch back to computers and when Doom came out, it seemed like everyone was picking up a PC. Then Quake came out and with the Internet boom everyone bought new computers. Now people are going back to consoles because there are so many good games there that aren't available for computers. If someone made a game for Linux that really kicked ass, I imagine that suddenly a lot of people would be running Linux. Take for instance, Frozen Bubble. Great game play and highly addictive, got a lot of people to use Linux who didn't before.

    This can be especially said of the 18-34 demographic which surprisingly always seems to have the money to get something that they really want. Like a new $400 video card to play Half-Life 2.

    Someone needs to write a unique and really great game that is only available for Linux.
    • by DrEldarion (114072) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:32PM (#12714971)
      Someone needs to write a unique and really great game that is only available for Linux.

      Commercial companies would never do that, as they'd be shooting themselves in the foot profit-wise, and most private games won't stand up to the quality or scope of commercial games.

      Granted, simple games can be really great, but they're also easily copied and aren't likely to convert anybody in the first place.
  • by conner_bw (120497) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:22PM (#12714752) Homepage Journal
    Piracy.

    At least we'll always have Nethack.

  • I highly doubt it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Willie_the_Wimp (128267) * <fred.garvin@nospam.gmail.com> on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:22PM (#12714756)
    Well,

    There are games that make sense on a console (driving sims, fighting games, etc.) and games that work better on a PC (first person shooters (arguable), MMORPGs, RTS, etc.). I know that personally, I will want to have both for the forseeable future. I love driving on my high def TV, but I despise playing first person shooters on the console, due to the lack of control.

    People are always trying to be the first to drive a nail in some coffin. In this case, it is highly premature, IMO.

    Willie
    • by PondScum (51944)
      You hit it spot on.

      Trying to lump "gaming" together as a single market is an extremely shortsighted and naive view. There are at least two "very different" types of gaming.

      The trend in console games is to optimize for graphics. For certain types of games this is absolutely perfect. FPS, Racing, one on one fights, etc.

      For Strategy games, (MMO)RPGs, RTS etc the gating factor is the game's decision making AI rather than the ability to render graphics. The PC hardware is optimized to maximize processor cycle
      • One other note: As long as people have PCs, there will be a PC gaming market. I need a PC for other reasons, and since I have one, I see NO reason to spring the $$$ to buy a console.

        As well, there are those of us who, believe it or not, don't have TVs. I have a 21-inch LCD which is more than adequate for watching movies, playing games, or doing just about anything else. As there is absolutely nothing on television that I consider worth adding to my life*, I have zero need for a crappy 620x480px television
    • by mangu (126918)
      I love driving on my high def TV

      So, you need a special TV or monitor for a console to become good for some games. And then, as others have mentioned, you need to plug a keyboard and mouse for some other games. In the end, the difference between a console and a PC is exactly what?

      Basic consoles have two advantages over PCs: they are cheap and small. They have several disadvantages: poor screen resolution on standard TVs, restricted choice of input devices, do not run non-gaming software. If you start imp

  • Not at all... (Score:3, Informative)

    by th3space (531154) <brad AT bradfucious DOT com> on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:22PM (#12714757) Homepage
    But they'll drive another nail in the coffin...it's cheaper for developers to put out games for one or two hardware configurations rather than trying to optimize for for hundreds of potential configurations. Further, they can easily set a higher price point...most new PC games I get are around 29.99 or 39.99 USD, as opposed to 49.99 for most console games I purchase...

    The big hope for PC gaming is open source games and modding...but even that is, as yet, still pretty unproven - outside of CounterStrike, of course.
  • Will there still be a market for PC games

    Yes.

    or are the graphics of the next generation of consoles going to make PC games unnecessary?

    No.
  • Ask me again... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Handpaper (566373) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:22PM (#12714761)
    when somebody builds a user-upgradeable console.
    • Way to miss the entire point of consoles. The fixed platform is what makes consoles as powerful as they are. Every developer knows that every copy of their product will run on the platform because every unit is the same. There is no need to program in fallback code to make the product run on video cards that don't support all of the whiz-bang grapics, or to deal with systems at the bottom edge of working.

      Look at the GRand Theft Auto games. Look at what kind of PC you need to get those to run and then l
  • by prgrmr (568806) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:22PM (#12714762) Journal
    I don't want a console or appliance or what is really a second, specialized PC. I also would like to be able to play my old DOS-based games (Red Baron, various Star Treks, Dawn Patrol and the like) on my exising PC without having to jump through a thousand hoops to do it.
  • Widespread adoption has never happened before at that price. What's different now? Older gamers want to pay more ? Well, maybe. Try $199.
    • When the PS2 was launched you couldn't find one to buy for close to six months, because it was priced too low and demand far outstriped production. Sony doesn't want to make that mistake again. Hard core gamers are willing to pay 400 to be the first on the bock with the latest system. six months later drop the price $50 and get the slightly less hardcore, repeat untill you hit market saturation.
      • The problem with that is, it doesnt sell the maximum number of games. That's where the profit is.
        The more consoles out there, the more games can be sold when they come out. It's in the munfacturer's interest to sell as many consoles as fast as they can produce them to get the games sales.
  • More than video (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:23PM (#12714767) Homepage Journal
    PC games are about a lot more than just the graphics. And there are still going to be a lot of people who own a PC- to do PC things, who wont own a console. PC games may not be the top money maker but they will still be around for a long time.
    • Current consoles could never replace PC's. They just were not full-featured enough or really had the abilities PC's do.

      But both the PS3 and Xbox 360 will have HD's, wireless network cards, and all sorts of standard ports (for keyboards and mice). Combine this with much higher standard resoltion output and you have something that COULD replace a PC. I am pretty sure this is both Microsoft and SOnys intention this time around, it remains to be seen if this bogeyman of integration treats them well. I mean
  • This is a dupe of a story that was published before the PS2 came out.
    • Re:Dupe (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tlosk (761023)
      And in that time PC game titles have seriously declined in both in quanitity and quality relative to console game titles. The question now is will this slide continue? Have we reached the inflection point? (The point where the average console game is better than the average PC game. How much shelf space is dedicated to console games versus PC games.)

      In my opinion, being on the cusp of three new consoles we are now at the inflection point and while PC gaming will always be around in some form, however sma
  • How could $400 next-gen consoles kill of PC gaming, when $300 consoles failed to do so?

    I mean, this is coming from a console gamer and a Mac user, so the idea of using a computer for gaming is completely alien to me. ;-) but even still, there will always be folks for whom the latest video card is a requirement, who want to play games that really aren't served on the console - like, oh, say...World of Warcraft?
  • Which is to say that once the 18-34 demographic starts buying $400 PS3s instead of $400 video cards, developers may have no choice but to follow suit.

    Serious gamers use serious hardware and have the serious dollars to get the best. While gamers have cash, developers will be there to look after their needs.

    __
    free funny videos [laughdaily.com]
  • Mice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mboverload (657893) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:24PM (#12714787) Journal
    Consoles will have kill PC gaming not because of what they can do, but because of what they lack: A mouse. Microsoft has said it has no intension of making one and I think I heard Sony say the same. If you are a gamer you know that first person shooters are pretty much unplayable on consoles. The only way I'm buying UT 2007 on an xbox is if they have a mouse with it. How the hell am I supposed to aim across the map with a fking analog stick?
  • by Kainaw (676073) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:24PM (#12714788) Homepage Journal
    I had an Intellivision and then an Atari 2600. After that, I felt that if it deserved to be a computer game, it deserved to be on a computer. Then, over the past few years, it became a headache. My wife would buy some new game and I knew that I would have to spend a few hours downloading updates and configuring it to work properly. I just got sick of it and bought a PS2. Now, you just pop in the disk and play - no driver updates and no configuration. I think that the ease-of-use will be a major factor in getting people to move from PC to console.
  • The bottom line is that console manufacturers often heavily subsidize their new machines, swallowing huge losses up front in hopes that they'll make it all back selling games

    The following consoles were sold at a loss of more than a few dollars:

    Sega Saturn
    Sega Dreamcast
    Microsoft Xbox

    ... all others have been sold at a profit or at a maximum of a few dollars loss just after a price drop.

  • I own a computer system for more reasons than gaming - development, office tools, internet connectivity, graphic editing, etc. This means, in short, I can game on it as well. I admittedly rarely do because I AM using all of the above, but still.

    A computer is owned for a variety of reasons - a console largely for only one (though they are expanding). However the "footprint" of computers is rather large, so there's a reason to serve the market.

    In addition, a computer is multifunctional. Any number of my
  • console
    No sir this is just hype
    what people might finally do is just buy a console to sit along with their puters
    and probably buy those mods that let you make them load something like linux and get a super powerful desktop for a fraction of cost
  • And improved graphics have very little to do with it.

    More important is increased network support on next-gen consoles.

    Even more important, though, is the reason that the console game market is already much, much larger than the PC one: developers only have to test on one (or 3, if you're going cross-platform) hardware configuration, not dozens.
  • Ok.. so when will we see the OfficePro 9500 console? Filled to the brim with office apps and productivity software... VOIP, and lan built in.. shell out $100/user and off you go.

    don't worry about worms or OS issues, since it boots fresh every time.
  • by Epistax (544591)
    I never plan on buying another console. Why buy a console for $400 when a new graphics card costs $100 (by new, I mean able to play new games). The other intensive things I do assure that I have enough RAM and to the least extent CPU power.

    I simply don't see a reason to own a console until I have no choice (bundling it with home media system).
  • I would switch if there was a console that had REAL keyboard and mouse input. There's a hack for xbox, but it's only a hack. I can't live without my mouse and keyboard!
  • The thing that makes me cringe is giving up the keyboard and mouse. I'm not only talking about only FPS, I'm talking any game. There are simply more buttons on a keyboard/mouse combination. That means you're not learning a bunch of seemingly random controller moves to do what you have to do.

    I'm not criticizing people who use controllers. I've tried to use them several times in my 40 years, but I just cannot get use to them as I'm just too god-darned old.

  • Don't we hear this argument every time a new generation of consoles comes out?

    Besides, until console gaming develops active mod communities (don't hold your breath), text chat (which would basically re-create the PC experience) and mouse support (ditto)... the console will always be an inferior platform.

    Thumbstick control will *never* have the accuracy of mouse control. VOIP support results in chaos when used in a MMO environment. And modding is limited since a PC is usually required to create the mod.
  • How do they manage to subsidize the consoles? Simple: you pay over the odds for the games. On the PC games may cost as much at launch, but they go down much faster, and these days you can get some fairly decent games for free and a whole host at a fiver each. For someone who games a lot, the PC is far cheaper in the long run.
  • No, X will not 'kill off' Y. As long as X and Y are two different products with different strengths; No X has ever outright killed off Y, nor will it ever. Y's userbase may however, given time, dwindle away to nothing as they gradually move on to better alternatives. However, a lot may happen before then. I get enough sensationalism elsewhere. Please don't add to it here too.
  • The biggest strength of PC games, in my opinion, is that it's fairly easy for 3rd parties to extend games. More and more games like UT24K, Half-Life 2, and Neverwinter Nights get their longevity through the community mods that spring up around them, rather than the game itself.

    I'm a long-time NWN mod person. It's amazing how many cool things have appeared for the game, keeping a thriving community going for years after release. I don't think you'll ever see that sort of thing happen to consoles.

    Con
  • Console games would be fine if the controlls didn't suck! Give me a mouse-and-keyboard controll for FPS cames rather than some thumbpad crap.

    Plus, in their current forms, you really can't massively network like PCs can. Yes, that can change with more memory and more hard drive and better networking, but I still think we're at least 2 generations from seeing that.
    • Then again, for certain types of games, a good gamepad really is better than the standard mouse-and-keyboard. Fighting games, sports games, and platformers all do better with a gamepad than mouse/keyboard.
  • That a PC can do that a console can't. But what really, consoles just keep getting closer and closer to just being PCs. I mean with everything I have heard about the new Xbox it is just a dumbed down PC. It really does seem like a convergence of such and maybe this type of convergence will make it easier for developers to create for PC and console.
  • In order to get the full value of the graphics from these consoles, one will require a hi def TV, and those ain't cheap!
  • This happens every four or five years. New consoles come out, they shine for a while. PC games begin to rise again the next year. The year after that, the big-ticket console titles have finally had enough time to bake and it's a console year. Next year dwindles, and PC games "fight back" with more big sequels and releases. About a year later new consoles come out and the cycle continues.

    Although it stands to reason that if Microsoft has its way, within a few cycles consoles and PCs will both be replac
  • PC gaming won't die. There's something macho, so to speak, about the mere existence of $400 graphics cards. It makes the hobby more "manic."

    Sort of like golf, ski or cycling. Being able to pay so much for equipment adds a bit to the aura of the hobby. Anyone can buy a $200-300 console, sssh! It takes a real gamer to drop a month rent on a graphics card! (Oh wait, manic gamers don't pay rent, do they? :P)

  • I was considering buying a console because I'm switching to Mac for my production work. But I'm an FPS player and I like having access to a keyboard and mouse. Plus, the resolution of a TV is a paltry 3 or 400 pixels, unless you've got HD. Which I don't. Last time I looked at consoles, mice, keyboards, and hi res weren't options. Has this changed?

    If consoles *do* start wooing PC gamers away, it might eat significantly at a demographic that would make the mac switch (or go to pure linux) but for their ga
  • This question comes about with every new generation of consoles, and the answer is always no, for a few reasons:

    1) Most fundamentally, many PC gamers don't like a lot of console-style games, and vice-versa. If you've seen an argument between PC-RPG and Console-RPG people, you'd know this.

    2) There will always be a segment of people who say "Well, I already have a computer, so why pay more money for a console?". Likewise, there will always be people who will say "Well, I can get a console for $300, but a
  • Were you at E3? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hipsterdufus (42989)
    The PC section was relegated to a tiny hallway in the basement. PC gaming, such as it is, will be gone in two years time. Consoles have the power now. PCs no longer to be any faster than a 450Mhz box to surf the net and run mail. It's finished. My two and a half year old P4 3.2 is still considered a high end machine. Back in the day, you could squeeze 2 years out of a box, max. Sure, the ati 9800 pro could use an upgrade, but I can still get almost $120 for it on ebay.

    The next gen consoles have just
  • Consoles are fine for FPS, RPGs etc, where you take on a persona and everything happens in close to the first person. However, the interface is simply not designed for complex strategy and simulation games. Can you imagine trying to control and coordinate groups of troops in Starcraft or Shogun using that little game controller? How about things like Railroad Tycoon - you'd need a virtual pointer written into the game to be able to perform all the different possible actions.

    Nothing beats a mouse and keyboa
  • ... consoles will always be an *additional* gaming platform. People use 'puters on the job, so when they buy something for home, they get the thing they know for email, web, Quicken, etc. The installed base for PCs is far larger than necessary to support a gaming industry, and that installed base will continue because of inertia in other areas.

    The ridiculously low price for consoles helps make them a secondary gaming box, or perhaps primary for certain members of the family like kids, but houses will alw
  • Sure, your hardcore Halo fan may leave the PC but I would think that a lot of gamers game because they have a PC. I'm not going to buy a console, point blank. If I didn't have a PC I wouldn't game.

    I probably only buy 5-6 titles a year but I'm also a 5 year subscriber to EQ and EQ2. So maybe I'm not a large factor in the gaming industries eyes but I'm sure there are plenty of people just like me. And not being hardcore gamers we're a lot less likely to do survays for some gaming magazine and less likely to
  • by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:44PM (#12715140) Homepage
    Other things being equal, the DIY-heavy PC gaming industry can't hope to compete in that kind of market. Which is to say that once the 18-34 demographic starts buying $400 PS3s instead of $400 video cards, developers may have no choice but to follow suit.

    A $400 video card is a red herring. They are only for early adopters who want to win pissing contests. The latest games are written to run well on far more modest cards. A DIY'er could buy a $150 video card when building the system and then upgrade to a different $150 card 18-24 months later and not miss out on any games. Been there, done that. In comparison my console is stuck in time for 5 years.

    Also some games just seem to work much better on PCs, RTS for example. Even with games that do work well on consoles, FPS for example, my personal feeling is that FPSs designed to work on both PCs and consoles seemed "dumbed down" compared to FPSs that were designed to work only on PCs.

    I'm sure others will mention the more obvious reasons why PC gaming will not die so I'll only mention an offbeat on. It is a much easier market to enter. A startup can develop a game and market it themselves. No need to get blessings from some arbitrary authority.

    PC gaming will only go away when PCs themselves go away.
  • Nooooo! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Soong (7225) on Friday June 03, 2005 @01:54PM (#12716034) Homepage Journal
    I haven't gotten my super-duper PC game out yet! PC gaming can't die!

    Really, developing for consoles seems to be a rather specialized endeavor best suited to established game companies. What of the little guy? Carmack wouldn't have written Doom for a console.

    On the other hand, people will develop for what they have. I'd happily develop for a Cell processor if I had a cheap (Free/free preferrably) development environment for it.

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Working...