Will Next-Gen Consoles Kill Off PC Gaming? 1214
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?
Its all about availability. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I highly doubt it. (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Ask me again... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tell me again (Score:3, Interesting)
Two years after the console is released it'll be an even wider difference, and 3 years after it'll be incomparable
Mice (Score:3, Interesting)
There will always be something. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Consoles don't pentrate the market at $400 (Score:3, Interesting)
Were you at E3? (Score:2, Interesting)
The next gen consoles have just as much power, now the only real difference is the interface. I prefer keyboard/mouse over the controller for first person shooters, but that's about it. If I can have fun with Halo, I can have fun in Half Life 2. It isn't financially feasible to code for so many platforms, one of them has to give. Aloha, pc gaming. It was nice to know you. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Re:Dupe (Score:3, Interesting)
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 small, the days of dominance technically and in mindshare are behind us.
Don't worry though, people still listen to 8 tracks and enjoy themselves, people still write on typewriters and get the job done. Plenty of people continue with their chosen technology well beyond its "death" so I'm sure in 20 there will still be people playing games on PCs, but they will be few and far between in comparison to people using a specialized console of one sort or another.
This round is where they aim to replace PC's (Score:3, Interesting)
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 the PS3 is a computer that you can hook a keyboard two and hook into TWO 1080p displays! Only higher end computer users are running with comparible resolutions today, and it can make whatever "desktop" they have you use look pretty sharp.
The really interesting thing is that if people are playing all thier games on PC's, then the "PC" in your message above can REALLY be a PC - as in personal computer, not a Windows box. It makes it FAR easier for people to buy and use Macs or Linux desktops, and even really more likley since they will not face the problems Windows users have. Moving games onto dedicated hardware for the masses could really lead to a huge platform shift.
Next-gen consoles have exactly that (Score:3, Interesting)
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. 512MB console ram is like 720MB (or more) PC RAM, and like I said is WAY faster as well. As for quality graphics, the PS3 graphics chip (according to nVidia) is like two top of the line GeForce Ultras! The XBox 360 is not that much different either. And the PS3 will support two 1080p displays, roughly equivilent to what top-end gamers today run at - never mind that the majority of the population is proboably running games at 1024x768.
The next round of consoles is where they finally take a leap over PC capabilites and offer significant ease of use benefits.
It's not going to take five generations, try a year.
Re:Tell me again (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Nooooo! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Things WILL be different (Score:3, Interesting)
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 laptops.
6. Game and computer companies are getting serious about IP, and the computer is their weak point. You can't copy anything on a console. How many original copies of Starcraft are left? When it's so much easier to pirate computer games and get the same experience, it really diminishes profits and enthusiasm. Even Blizzard is moving to consoles. That's also why online games are popular with publishers- besides the subscription prices, you can't play without paying.
I think real PC gaming is done. My friends still play Starcraft, all own PS2s, don't want to learn the difference between NVidia and ATI, AMD FX and Intel EE, or spend hours setting up LANs, toting computers around, troubleshooting technical problems. Once the A-list titles disappear, the investment goes elsewhere, and this is already happening.
You're not a fool, but you're on the wrong side.
Re:Tell me again (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone who waits a year or two to save money on a video card is making a good buy. Yeah, I can agree to that as long as the person doesn't care about waiting a year or two.
Someone who buys a nice video card today to play games that come out today are responsible for all the horrible marketing that goes on and are just plain idiots for buying nice stuff. Errr, you lost me there.
How about this:
-If you want to wait a year or two to buy a video card, that's cool as long as you don't mind waiting. You aren't any better/smarter than anyone else, you just don't mind waiting. You'll most likely spend your money on something else in the meantime.
-If you DON'T want to wait a year or two to buy a video card, that's cool too as long as you don't mind paying a higher price. You aren't any better/smarter than anyone else, you just like gaming enough to spend the money. You'll most likely spend less money on other things because you have a strong interest in gaming.
You know... maybe we could all try and not be assholes? Just a thought.
Re:I spent $600 on my BFG 6800 Ultra (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tell me again (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, the mouse is a better HID for FPS'es... if that is all you play then sure, you probably won't get much out of consoles.
I'm a former PC gaming snob that has partially converted to consoles. I game on both, and have come to appreciate the many advantages of consoles.
You can rant all you want, but the fact is, for the whole system, consoles are cheaper, and that simple economic fact will drive their continued popularity. What are you going to buy your kid for gaming - a $1000+ notebook, or a PS2/XBOX? In the future, will it be easier for consoles to absorb PC functionality, or for PC's to get easier and cheaper?
Re:Tell me again (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, I didn't say you were an idiot, I said "maybe you are a sucker".
Maybe you are so caught up in being a good little consumer that you'd be willing to spend a couple hundred extra for a disproportionate amount of performance. Maybe you can afford it, maybe you save up for it, I don't really care. There is just such a "must have it now" attitude that I think is just silly. It's hype, it's fluff. Gaming is just part of it, not the whole problem. The gaming industry has certainly succumbed to the wiles of the marketing droids. Xbox 360 launch on MTV? Ha. Things don't stand on their own merit, they stand on how well they can be sold. Things may LAST on their own merit, but nowadays everything seems to be gauged on how much it can sell within the first week or month. Admittedly, tech people usually look at things with a more critical eye, but not always.
Look, you don't have to wait a year or two to buy a video card that will play the latest games. You can buy several right now. Will you buy one that is a year old or the latest and greatest in order to get that extra 5 fps? I think it isn't just the 5 fps, it is some kind of chest-puffing bragging rights. To me that just doesn't make sense. Sorry you feel I am an asshole for pointing all this out, I guess I touched a nerve. If you really didn't care, you would say "I spend my money on what I want to spend it on" and leave it at that.
What About Controls... (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with consoles, is you have a few buttons to use and that's it. Even with add-on controllers, it's not nearly as customizable as a PC games controls.
I'd hate to play some of the stuff I play on my PC on a console. Ick. Plus, the graphics seem better on my PC (even with an older video card).