PC Gaming On The Comeback Trail 75
The Chicago Tribune reports on efforts from the PC gaming sector to revive what many have considered to be a failing part of the industry. From the article: "Many [Gamespot] stores have demo kiosks for consoles such as the PlayStation 2 or Nintendo DS so gamers can try before they buy. Testing a PC game has been impossible. Not anymore. In a trial collaboration announced a few weeks ago, GameStop and Round Rock, Texas-based Dell have rolled out computer game kiosks in 25 GameStop stores. Customers can test a handful of the best PC games the same way they test-drive the latest PS2 release. The kiosks will be powered by Dell's revamped and supercharged XPS computers, coupled with 42-inch Dell high-definition plasma monitors."
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
PC gaming is neither demising or making a comeback. It's as popular as it has ever been. More people own more computers than ever before and more people are gaming on them than ever before. There are a lot of gaming experiences you simply can't get off another instrument.
Not a realistic way to experience a PC game. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
PC gaming - coming or going? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I think PC gaming has certainly been on a bit of a rollercoaster compared with console gaming over the last couple of years. In particular, I think the PC has struggled to establish itself against the curret generation of consoles in the same way that it has past generations. For me, the absolute nadir of PC gaming came in 2003, when Call of Duty was voted game of the year by pretty much every outlet that covered PC gaming. If your game of the year is a technologically obsolete and gameplay-deprived clone of a game released the previous year (Medal of Honour), you know your industry has problems. This was at a time when major titles were appearing for the consoles on a more or less weekly basis.
The PC has rallied slightly, since then. 2004 saw the PC creeping ahead of the consoles in terms of visuals for the first time, with Doom 3, Farcry and Half-Life 2 being the most impressive examples. It also finally saw some respectable big-name games for the PC. This has continued somewhat in 2005, particularly with Quake 4 and F.E.A.R, both of which look and play better than equivalent console fpses.
However, don't take this as an indication that the PC can continue to hold its own against the consoles in the longer term. The current gen consoles have virtually run their cycle now. Nintendo have all but admitted that the Gamecube is retired and the PS2 might as well be. The X-Box is still hanging on, but even there, we're about to be hit by the next generation.
However, when you compare the level of technical lead the PC has built up during this cycle and the speed with which it established it, it's pretty pathetic. Think about it. When consoles were playing Super Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog, the PC had X-Wing and Strike Commander. When the PS1 and N64 were at their height, PC gamers had Half-Life. By contrast, the PC has only just narrowly edged ahead at the end of this cycle. With the next gen about to hit, it's going to get knocked to the back of the field entirely.
Of course, the PC will never die out as a gaming platform completely. It remains the only sensible platform for widescale distribution of home-brew games. Nobody's yet managed to make an RTS interface that works on a console (although I'd argue that console fpses can be pretty sweet now). PC releases are much easier for companies who can't afford to go through the mandatory Q&A cycles for the consoles. However, if the PC doesn't get a clear technological lead over the next-gen consoles early in the cycle, it's finished as a mainstream platform.
How can this happen? I suspect there are two major steps that need to be taken. First of all, ATI and Nvidia need to get a proper strategy. They need to stop putting out a new $600 graphics card every 3 months and make solid, decently specced and non-confusing card ranges that the average consumer can use and not suffer for using. Next, they need to start insisting on their own Q&A programmes for PC games. Console games with serious bugs merit their own slashdot story. With PC games, it's expected. Until somebody forces devs to confront this situation, PC gaming is going to continue to bleed market-share in the long term.
A Good Thing, IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only can people perform all of the other usual computer-related tasks with a desktop without having to switch machines, TV really sucks for gaming, resolution wise. Also, the average PC is still usually a lot more powerful than the average console, as well. Plus if you already have a PC and use it for gaming, you don't need to spend an extra $300-$700 on an Xbox...The first generation Xbox was a glorified doorstop even when it first came out, IMHO. if you still have that money spare, you can use it on a ram, processor, or video card upgrade, which will not only improve your gaming experience, but let you do other things more effectively as well. A new GeForce 6800 video card will render graphics better than any console, as well.
There was a point to consoles back when they were 8 bit, and earlier, (mainly because back then the average PC was only as powerful as the console itself, or less so) but these days they're nothing but a expensive gimmick. The only real reason why they're viable at all now IMHO is because of the overhead normally incurred by Windows on a PC. It's possible to strip XP though, (I stop all unnecessary services and actually kill/restart explorer before/after loading a game, and can get XP down to 60 or so MB RAM this way, which leaves over 400 for the game for me) or use Linux, and with X have the game set as the window manager itself. That works great for UT at least.
Although it's true I don't have sufficient money for a console as well as a PC, if I did have it, I still wouldn't buy one. They're completely redundant.
Same-screen multiplayer on PCs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the average PC is still usually a lot more powerful than the average console, as well.
Then why do most PC games require four PCs for four players (at $800 a piece, especially if the players live in the same household or residential broadband is not affordable), while console games such as Super Smash Bros. Melee can put four players on one console with one screen?
Re:A Good Thing, IMHO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:PC gaming - coming or going? (Score:2, Insightful)
For the first time? Are you on crack? The PC is almost always ahead and ahead by a large margin including right now. The only time I remember when you could argue that console systems where ahead was when the Xbox first came out, and even then you stil had to play it on an anemic display (TV). Even if you are lucky enough to have an HDTV that isn't anywhere close to the kind of resolution that a PC can pump out.
Do you even have a computer that wasn't built 6+ years ago? Your bias is glaring.
Each system has it's advantages but now to really enjoy with the upcoming generation you will need a HDTV, and at those prices you can easily get a nice gaming computer. It really comes down to what kind of games you like to play as to what kind of system you will enjoy the most.