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?"
Console vs. PC (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose however that the console market may eventually become the place for the pre-eminent titles especially given the kind of hardware that will be going into the next generation systems (G5s in the next Xbox?) and that PC titles will become ports. Of course we did see this approach with Halo, but only because MS screwed it up for us by purchasing Bungie, thus delaying the launch of Halo for Mac/Win and killing it all together for Linux.
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:5, Funny)
> controller
You just aint trying hard enough.
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:5, Interesting)
-
I'd personally rather play on my PC because of the extra control that having a keyboard and mouse gives you. There's only so many buttons you can put on a controller, and a mouse gives you an accuracy in just about anything that involves aiming that a joystick cannot and will never be able to match.
This of course depends on what type of game you're playing. From what you say, I'm guessing you have FPS games in mind, and all of that is very true. However, when it comes to playing a RPG like FFX, the difference is minimal. I personally find it easier to control the game on a console than on the PC. YMMV of course. Not to mention that many developers use far too many keyboard commands and the interface gets so complicated the game's a bear to play. There is something to be said for simpler designs on user interfaces to games.I think the thing is that there are quite a bit of games out there designed with the console controller in mind and they do a fine job making the controls work great. Then they port it to the PC and the game's annoying as hell to play without a gamepad. In that case I'd rather just stick to the console.
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 actually game more since I bought the PS2 than I did before on my PC, even back when I was in college and had more free time. I really doubt I'm the only person out there who has found this to be true. Thanks to discovering this I'm pretty much just a console gamer, at least I'll actually play games and relax that way, and I'm on the PC at work all day anyway, not like I really miss being on it another 4-6 hours in the evening. :)
Of course it probably helps that I have never liked FPS games, and have found I prefer the cinematic-style RPGs on the consoles (like Xenosaga, with 22 hours or so of cinematics).
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, so your problem is that you get distracted from your gaming productivity by things? My problem tends to be the reverse. I sit down by my computer intending to write that important essay or whatever thing I have been putting off, but somehow my mouse slips and I start (Baldur's Gate 2, UT2004, Halo, whatever).
"No! Bad computer! Oh what the hell, just a little bit then.... Ooops, is it midnight already?"
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:3, Informative)
I still have to reboot for some games (Homeworld 2, StarTopia, Dungeon Keeper, etc) but I can play several others (StarCraft, WC3, etc) without having to reboot, its kind of a classic good news, bad news situation :)
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:5, Interesting)
even if the PS3 has a 9800pro with 256 MB memory, that doesn't change the fact that it has a very low maximum resolution.
I could buy an HDTV, but have you checked the prices of HDTVs lately? far far more expensive than the cheap monitor that comes with a dell.
also, I already have a computer, I can upgrade that computer when new tech comes out, I can browse slashdot, and do whatever I want on that computer. I cannot, however, upgrade a console, I just have to buy a new one, and I am limited to gaming.
I think i'll go with the PC.
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:3, Insightful)
and with a really decent gaming PC as low as $500 (everyone already had an existing monitor no?) the console is not much cheaper.
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 wha
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:3, Interesting)
No Killer PC Apps Lately (Score:5, Interesting)
just wait till World of Warcraft and Doom 3 come out.
Re:No Killer PC Apps Lately (Score:3, Informative)
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 se
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:Console vs. PC (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I believe that we'll see many more games that work on the console and work incredibly well on the PC as well... kind of a "yes, the 'rabble' can play, too" in a way, although I have a feeling the consoles will be catered to more and more over time. After all, one must follow the money.
Still, I believe that as long as PC's are appreciably faster and featureful (and of course they will be- it takes more effort to stay ahead of the curve, and greater flexibility) all will be well.
My vision is that long-term OS game engines supporting multiple platforms including consoles will take over the world, and that those of us with PC's will be able to "run games" much like MUDS of the 90's and today but with rich 3d and eventually VR-like capabilities.
Who knows, with Maya et al, maybe that day will be sooner than I had thought. :)
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 wee
Re:Console vs. PC (Score:2, Funny)
my most frequent game (once or twice a week) is Doom
You are not kidding when you say you don't like to upgrade.
Console empires have come and gone since.
Re:Console vs. PC (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 comp
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.
Price of console vs. price of graphics card (Score:5, Insightful)
Nintendo Entertainment System vs IBM-PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Nethack or Dungeon Crawl ain't on the console (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nethack or Dungeon Crawl ain't on the console (Score:2)
Ask Rev. Lovejoy (Score:4, Funny)
Lovejoy: ooh, Ned. Short answer no with a but, long answer yes with an if.
Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty clear that neither form of gaming is going to "die".
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 wi
Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:3, Insightful)
Please... consoles are great for mindless gaming, but graphics is not their forte.
Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:5, Interesting)
For an example, take a look at Deus Ex and its sequel, Invisible War, which epitomises the sterotypes above. DX was originally written for the PC and had what often seemed huge levels, even if this was entirely down to effective design; the Hong Kong levels in particular were very impressive at this. There was quite sophisticated AI for the time and many situations could be handled a whole lot easier if you thought about what you were doing and didn't go in guns blazing.
Segue to DX:IW, designed from the ground up to accomodate the console market and much of the magic is gone. The levels are smaller; so much smaller that you seem to spend as much time loading levels as you do actually playing them because you have to move back and forth so much. As for the "universal" ammunition for projectile and energy weapons which smacks of "four control button consolitis"; puhleeze! No more rueing using your last sniper round on the minion to save time and now having to face his boss up close and personal with a melee weapon in DX:IW!
So, "Die"? No, almost certainly not, but getting hamstrung to the lowest common denominator of each aspect of the targetted platforms seems equally inevitable. All those PC game genres that take advantage of PC hardware, even trivial stuff such as having a proper keyboard, are really going to suffer if the trend continues...
Re:Games: Topics Beat To Death (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea...
Old School (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Old School (Score:3, Interesting)
I may be an old fart about this, but I think many of the slower more thoughtful strategy games are more fun than the twitchers. These games will always be on the PC side. I can see the migration where FPS's will tend toward the console.
I think you are right about the strategy games; the 'serious' gamers who play a lot of slower games don't usually buy consoles; and I'm not sure that there's a big incentive for the console developers to push into that market; except perhaps in Japan, where there seems to b
Re:Old School (Score:2, Informative)
Or are you talking about things like Adventure and Zork? I don't think those have been ported to the PS2.
Re:Old School (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that unless the superior input schemes (keyboard, mouse) actually come with every console sold, the game companies will design their games around the control instead. They don't want to artificially limit their market by only being able to sell to the few console gamers who purchase additional input devices to supplement the controllers that came with their system. So they will just design a game with a simplistic user interface instead.
Even if a major console manufacturer did include these
Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs? (Score:2)
Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs? (Score:4, Informative)
-
I love to be able to play against my console-loving nephews with a mouse-keyboard setup. Maybe I'd finally stop giving them the boundless amusement of slapping around Uncle Jim!
Once FF XI is released here for the PS2 it's one that is playable by both PS2 and PC games. Currently it's only available for the PC since Sony is delaying the PS2 hard drive launch (required by FF XI) for some reason. The hard drive's been out in Japan for at least a year now, so I'm not sure what the issues are.Re:Are there MMOGs that allow consoles AND PCs? (Score:5, Interesting)
No thanks. I would rather keep the console and PC platform seperate when it comes to online play. I pay for Xbox Live for three reasons.
1) It is extremely hard to cheat using the Xbox + Xbox Live system.
2) High speed connections are required (read: No shooting at a 56K players lagging all over the place)
3) Level playing field (everybody plays with the same graphic settings / options. HDTV being the exception)
If gaming networks mixed PC players with console players I would cancel Xbox Live because I can get the same service for free elsewhere. I'm pretty sure the majority of subscribers feel that way too.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Live is "better" than plain internet multiplayer. I still play that way too. I just enjoy the clean sandbox benefits that Live brings to the table.
What about the workplace? (Score:4, Funny)
Bander
I hope not ... (Score:2, Interesting)
IRC, ICQ, Voice Comms, email, website's, they all help the PC be a more complete package for gaming (see The CPL).
PC's rule in my book.
Re:I hope not ... (Score:2)
Re:I hope not ... (Score:3, Informative)
Excepting games ported from the xbox, which always have terrible low-res textures, but run at much crisper resolutions anyhow.
Those looking for a premium gaming experience will always choose a PC.
I think it will stand here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think it will stand here (Score:2)
Re:I think it will stand here (Score:2)
Granted, consoles suffer on these games as well as FPS because of the lack of a keyboard and mouse and the low resolution of TV. These problems will go away in the future when HDTV is adopted and when console developers devise a controller that makes these games more playable. I doubt it will be a keyboard and mouse since that's not a goo
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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...
Re:Thank goodness for Microsoft, then... (Score:3, Interesting)
suddenly more productive (Score:2, Funny)
Depends on what you play (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
Re:Two words: LAN party (Score:2)
It's a shame that it got really, really boring after the first couple of hours.
Re:Two Words: MARIO KART! (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, but Slashdot's database literally carves your post into stone on the side of Michigan's highest mountain. The plan is to provide archaeologists from the year 2434 with an accurate historical record of Microsoft during our era.
Disposable Income? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disposable Income? (Score:2)
Uh, because not everyone is unemployed?
If you're unemployed then, yeah, buying a new game console (or a new gaming video card for your PC) might not be the smartest thing. Yeah, you won't be able to play Ninja Gaiden, or Doom3, or whatever, but that's really the least of your worries.
If you are employed, and have sufficient savings (my wife and I have enou
Re:Disposable Income? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
If other OSes gain popularity... (Score:4, Interesting)
multiple factors (Score:5, Interesting)
I really hope not, but we've already seen posts about Deus Ex II having a crappy interface that parallels that required for a console.
I had an opportunity to play Metroid Prime recently, given all its hype. I was very impressed with the game from graphics to story, but I got too frustrated by the controls. I couldn't stop thinking how easy these things I was TRYING to do were on a keyboard/mouse combo, but were complicated on the console by trying to press three buttons at once while moving one or another stick. So I scrapped it for Tony Hawk, which is totally suited to a joystick/controller.
Please tell me that PC gaming will live forever
Re:multiple factors (Score:2)
You can get an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro w/ 128MB for $120. That's more than a GameCube, but less than either system you mentioned.
Yes, that's only part of the system, but you can put together a very good system (AthXP 2500+, nForce2 MB, 512MB DDR3200, 40G HD, above video card, case, keyboard, mouse) for $525 ($617 once you include XP Home). Still much more than a console, but you can use it for a lot more than a consol
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.
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.Simple Economics (Score:2)
Consumers have the power. If they continue to buy PC games, game developers will continue to put the money into developing better games for PC platforms.
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.
Drives PC Hardware Sales (Score:3, Interesting)
I think if video game publishers ease off of the PC platform, we will see money from Nvidia, ATI, and Intel that will support cutting edge video gaming on the PC.
Another point... (Score:2)
While with modern consoles having USB ports they could add a keyboard/mouse, the most obvious missing input devices missing, the major point about consoles is really not that. Rather it's all about the video.
Console video is pretty much all about TVs. And while TVs have become far better than those in the past, they still arn't designed to the level of computer monitors.
Get a copy of FarCry [farcry-thegame.com] and bump up
Convergance (Score:2)
No console games for me (Score:2)
For some bizarre reason, some group of people thought this was flamebait. Perhaps they find the concept of someone not owning a TV too much for them or something.
I don't even have a TV to connect a console up to, and haven't had one in years. The idea of buying a piece of hardware just to play games on is mildly offensive to me. But the high levels of DRM (note, that I have purchased every single game I've played in the past 5 years) on them is extremely offensive to me.
So, no console games for me. If th
My opinion has changed over the years (Score:2)
Now that I'm an adult, the only games I play are on consoles.
What changed?
I went from windows to linux.
I don't have time to troubleshoot my 3d drivers, soundcard, etc.
Generally, when I want to play a game, I just want to relax.
IMO, the quality of console gaming has increased immensely.
With games like Metal Gear Solid out there, I just don't feel like I'm missing any
ATI and Nvidia's fault (Score:2)
I have had top ranked cards from both of these companies. I'll tell you right now... if you game hardcore.... open case and giant fans still doesn't cut it. The driver problems just never ever stop. Look at rage3d forum, it's ridiculous.
If the API is so incompatible with this and that, they should just wait. Wait a long ass time until they can get a solid product out the door. I have returned my new ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
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.
Prediction (Score:2)
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.
Consoles will win out (Score:3, Interesting)
PCs sold today come with either those crappy integrated graphics or advanced GPUs from ATi and nVidia. And even those with good graphics systems have would have a wide varieties of drivers installed, which means that some features are enabled and some are not.
Also, most PCs sold do not come with controllers and/or joysticks. And if the user buys such devices, there are numerous brands to consider.
There are also various sound cards, processors, etc., each with different features that gaming authors may or may not be able to take advantage of.
If you want to sell games for the PC, and you if you want to sell a lot of them, you're essentially forced to aim for the lowest common denominator. Only a handful of gaming publishers can sell high quality games without pandering to crappy computers.
And lets face it; there are essentially only two gaming engines for the PC, id's Quake and Epic's Unreal. When Carmack quits to devote himself fulltime to getting into space (which will happen after Doom3) that'll leave only one engine left. And let's face it, without Carmack, OpenGL will be dead on the PC too.
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 wha
It's ALL about the controls (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it was my first time playing a FPS with a game pad but I can't imagine actually prefering that input over a keyboard and mouse for a FPS. After that experience I am having second thoughts about getting a console, and thinking about just building a good PC gaming system instead.
Playing the Lord of the Rings game was a better experience with the game pad
But at the end of the day, I can easily get a game pad to work with a PC, if I prefer that input for some games, but AFAIK you can't use a mouse + keyboard with a console.
I agree with a poster above - it is all about what you play. With certain genres of games (FPS, RTS...) PC input is better.
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.
How can anyone afford a gaming PC? (Score:4, Interesting)
I understand the modding scene is fantastic, but can anyone offer an insight into how PC games find a market worth developing for?
(*)I take it nethack doesn't count?
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?
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).
"personalized" computers (Score:3, Interesting)
Keyboard and mouse control have already been mentioned. Let's take it a step further into oddball-land, with trackballs, spaceorbs, cyberman, joysticks, flight harnesses, USB peripherals, voice-activated microphone controls (UT2004)...
Then there's hardware modification. Modding a console voids your warranty and risks prosecution under the DMCA, or at the very least disqualifies you from online gameplay. This is compounded by the fact that to make consoles cost-effective, they need to have lowest-common-denominator performance profiles: the cheapest, minimal amount of RAM necessary to run anticipated games, the most cost-effective processor available when the entire line is published, basically minimal functionality beyond what the designers anticipate. A PC user can increase performance beyond the "specs" by loading up on RAM, high-performance video cards, hard disk space for more saved games, multiple-monitor output... basically, today's PCs have the capacity for levels of performance that even the "next generation" of consoles won't have when they're finally released. 3GHz processors with 1GB of RAM? With increasing bus speed and dedicated graphics processors, the kind of gameplay possible with PC hardware will doubtless exceed what any priced-to-sell console will do (keeping in mind that new consoles will probably go for $299-$399 and lose their vendors millions of dollars in the initial stages).
Of course, there's also software modification. 120GB hard drives mean that we can download Counter Strike and make Half Life into a whole new game. We can download Enemy Territory, Aliens for Doom, or Quake Rally, or any of thousands of mods which make our game into something wholly new. We can create, share, and seek out new third-pary maps, models, skins and rules for our FPSs, and gameplay experiences like Neverwinter Nights (as opposed to just MMORPGs) become possible. At the least, gameplay becomes more participatory and creative, and in many cases, game design careers are launched this way.
It's commonly noted that progress in technology is driven by two applications: porn and games. If consoles become the only venue for gaming, tech progress will face a glacial pace of innovation. While "the gameplay experience" hasn't been pushed on the PC recently thanks to gaming market stagnation into a few reasonably-successful genres, the capacity for PC gameplay innovation has always been vast; this can lead to new ideas in UI, in AI, in graphics quality and performance, sound, in modifiability (is that a word?).
The only real qualm people seem to have with the PC as a game platform is that games don't seem to sell too well. Well, some of them do. Others just don't seem to sell well enough to justify Hollywood-level production values. Ingenuity can come from smaller development studios too, and the nature of the PC and Internet allow these studios channels of distribution distinct from the Big Studio's dominance of shelf space in EBGames. Doom was an object lesson in this, but it doesn't end there. At least, hopefully it won't. Steam, for all its faults, is a bold new way to sell games; in an ideal world, Valve would open up Steam as a shareware distribution system, with new demos and for-purchase games showing up there from time to time.
Wow, I ranted.
PC gaming will be around as long as the PC (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone will own the platform.
Some people may by an Xbox, some may buy a PS2 and some may buy a Gamecube. When future generations of consoles are released, there will be people who buy them as well.
But nearly everyone is going to have a PC (or a Mac) because they use it for other things as well. Not everyone will stay on the cutting edge of PC gaming, but they will continue to use the PC for years to come.
Not dying at all. (Score:3)
Half-Life 2... Doom 3.
Yeah, it's dead.
Why would I want to play Tribes 3 or UT 2k4 when I can play Halo 2 in a couple of months, and perhaps have to spend a couple hundred bucks to get the new machine?
Beacause everyone knows, Halo is "the GREATEST" (Tribes rip-off). Christ, I was playing Tribes so long ago that Microsoft wasn't even in the games business, but instead wanted to sell you a joystick with their one crappy game as their strategy. People are already screaming of the death of the PC as a gaming platform when they do a rehash of an idea that came out FOUR FREAKING YEARS AGO?
Halo? Played it. It sucked. UT 2k4 is where it is at. It was there for all the poor saps that finally discovered that there are sometimes VEHICLES AND MULTIPLAY IN A FPS.
That was five years ago people. Welcome to the future.
Speaking of vehicles, in order to save you fanboys from losing your minds, I won't even discuss the Battlefield games... it would hurt you too much.
So why is PC gaming dead again? Someone please sit me down and explain it to me. I gotta know.
The answer is: Neither (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No console games for me (Score:2)
Re:Desktop Computer Are Becoming Less Relevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why I love my PS2 (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a bit of an exageration, altough a common one. In canada, the base PS2 (not the online pack) is 200$. For less than that price I can get a GeForceFX 5600 or a Radeon 9600 pro based card that will totally wipe the floor with the PS2 as far as frame rate/eye candy/resolution goes. Actually I can even get a TNT2 for 19$, and it might have a chance of beating the PS2 at the same resolution that the PS2 operates in.
Not that your point is invalid, a PS2 is the cheapest alternative. The quoted statement was just a bit much. The reasons the top PC card cost so much is that they're built to run games with WAY more details than PS2 games at 1600X1200 with 60+ frames per second.
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