Cliffy B and Epic claim they are done with the PC, consoles primary focus from here

[Mithent]

Yeah, a lack of understanding of what PC games are is probably a lot to do with it. They think that if they take a console game and then port it directly to PC then it'll sell well, and then look astonished when it doesn't. That doesn't cater to the PC's strengths at all; we have precise pointing devices, full keyboards and high-resolution screens that we sit only a few feet from (in most cases), which is exactly why the PC is good at strategy games, Western-style RPGs, MMORPGs, simulations and FPS games. The consoles live on action adventure games, third-person shooters, sports games and Eastern-style RPGs, which are better suited on the whole to their controllers and play style, where you have good analogue movement control but only a few interaction keys, with little scope for on-screen UI since it's neither easily accessible nor suited to viewing from across a room. Of course, console games can be ported to PC and some PC games can go the other way, but they're not on their home turf and thus usually have an inherent disadvantage.

The PC demographic is also probably somewhat older, and more likely to be involved in a community where there's a certain degree of groupthink as to which games are good, fed by reviews etc., whereas I would expect that a fair number of younger console gamers go by the boxes on the shelves. The PC also has a long heritage of online play and modding; consoles are catching up on the former but still trailing on the latter.

Mostly, console gaming feels rather.. limited to me. It's all very sandboxed and packaged up, so to speak. I've enjoyed some console ports on PC, such as the Prince of Persia series (except their effort to go 'edgy'; the first game was much more charming, but such is the peril of trying to appeal to 12-year-old boys), but generally I prefer home-grown PC games.

 

[Gorankar]

I don't mind Epic deciding to concentrate on the console. But Cliffy, just be honest about it. You want to cash in on the easy to please console market, then just say so. People will still be pissed, but at least you will not look like a liar or an idiot or both. And you would not have left as bad a taste in so many peoples mouths. Things like this are remembered Cliffy. You have just about guaranteed that any future PC project you try will prolly fail. You should prolly just stick to the consoles now Cliffy.

 

[Frosteh]

I agree with a lot of the comments here, I think the console demographic are more sheep like, consoles are more mainstream gaming, and as with anything that becomes mainstream like that the focus becomes more about money than anything else.

Look at the real top sellers for consoles like Halo 3, and look at the marketing behind them, it's almost forced into large sales, more and more investment is made to make a game a success, rather than spending more time and money actually increasing the quality of the game so it naturally sells better.

 

[Stiler]

What about those of us with Both, a PC and a console?

I picked up GOW on the 360 because I didn't feel like waiting so long for the pc version. However if it was a pc exclusive/came out there first or at the same time as the 360 version I would have got it there.

 

[jsu718]

With consoles being so similar to PCs now, you would think it wouldn't take much extra programming to make them for both. And it doesn't. Especially not with the Xbox 360. But I guess Epic doesn't want my money.

 

[Netrat33]

I agree with a lot of the comments here, I think the console demographic are more sheep like, consoles are more mainstream gaming, and as with anything that becomes mainstream like that the focus becomes more about money than anything else.

Look at the real top sellers for consoles like Halo 3, and look at the marketing behind them, it's almost forced into large sales, more and more investment is made to make a game a success, rather than spending more time and money actually increasing the quality of the game so it naturally sells better.

PC gamers are more child like these days with their constant bickering and infighting expecting more and more for free. Also an intelligent crowd that would rather find a way to play a game for free and find endless ways of justifying why they did an action.

Take a look at the hyped games for PCs such as Farcry....I mean Crysis that only push one thing: Graphics like IT'S the most important thing in gaming rather than, you know, fun. As to the "actually increasing the quality of the game" in regards to Halo 3. Well...tell me what do you mean? OH right...pc gaming...you mean graphics. Well I thought the game was fun. Not the revolution of gaming some might think but it was fun. And I bought Crysis, UT3, Orange Box, and Bioshock (multiplatform I know) for the PC. While I'm at it, I'm sorry, really the FPS genre is pretty much all the same with few exceptions. It's not like PC gaming really has done anything exceptional in this area for years. While companies like Insomniac TRY harder at least with games like Resistance.

RPGs for PCs. Ok. Another practically dying breed unless your WoW. Adventure games, Sadly hardly any support. Strategy seems to be the only thing still thriving.

Sorry but PC gaming hasn't done really anything for the industry anymore except push one thing. Graphics. And If it does try to push something: no one supports it.

 

[Nytegard]

PC gamers are more child like these days with their constant bickering and infighting expecting more and more for free. Also an intelligent crowd that would rather find a way to play a game for free and find endless ways of justifying why they did an action.

Take a look at the hyped games for PCs such as Farcry....I mean Crysis that only push one thing: Graphics like IT'S the most important thing in gaming rather than, you know, fun. As to the "actually increasing the quality of the game" in regards to Halo 3. Well...tell me what do you mean? OH right...pc gaming...you mean graphics. Well I thought the game was fun. Not the revolution of gaming some might think but it was fun. And I'm sorry, really the FPS genre is pretty much all the same with few exceptions. But it's not like PC gaming really has done anything exception in this area for years. While companies like Insomniac TRY harder at least with games like Resistance.

RPGs for PCs. Ok. Another practically dying breed unless your WoW. Adventure games, Sadly hardly any support. Strategy seems to be the only thing still thriving.

Sorry but PC gaming hasn't done really anything for the industry anymore except push one thing. Graphics. And If it does try to push something: no one supports it.

Why the hate on Crysis? I'll be the first person to admit Crysis is more of a tech demo than a game. But it is innovative. Name one other game with even half of the features Crysis has? I can take a gun and use it to shoot down a tree which will fall on an enemy and kill them. Name one other game with even a semi destructible environment that's not completely obvious? Is it a good FPS? Not really. But it's more innovative than any FPS that's been released in years, especially the late Epic games.

 

[MasterOfPupets]

Didn't read the whole thread, but here's my $.02

Problem with PC Gaming?
1) Too easy to pirate. No hardware mods needed, just wait til some random hacker crack it and download away. Any idiot can pirate PC software, doing it for consoles (with mod-chips and the like) is much more difficult.

2) Much pickier audience. PC gamers are anal about games. You can market a pile of crap on consoles and it will sell a million copies. PC gamers actually expect quality out of their games andquality costs more money than marketing.

3) Cornered Markets. Several formerly large markets for PC games (namely MMOs) have been cornered by a few major corporations (IE: WoW) and it's a common trend anymore.

4) Hardware dissparity. Why would a game maker spend time and money optimizing a game for any number of possible platforms and ranges of hardware when they can easily do it for one or two hardware platforms and sell just as many if not more copies?

In my mind, PC is still and always will be the hardcore gamers home, but with the rising influx of casuals to the gaming market, the slip to consoles for game companies seams to be an obvious choice.

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

PC gamers are more child like these days with their constant bickering and infighting expecting more and more for free. Also an intelligent crowd that would rather find a way to play a game for free and find endless ways of justifying why they did an action.

Take a look at the hyped games for PCs such as Farcry....I mean Crysis that only push one thing: Graphics like IT'S the most important thing in gaming rather than, you know, fun. As to the "actually increasing the quality of the game" in regards to Halo 3. Well...tell me what do you mean? OH right...pc gaming...you mean graphics. Well I thought the game was fun. Not the revolution of gaming some might think but it was fun. And I bought Crysis, UT3, Orange Box, and Bioshock (multiplatform I know) for the PC. While I'm at it, I'm sorry, really the FPS genre is pretty much all the same with few exceptions. It's not like PC gaming really has done anything exceptional in this area for years. While companies like Insomniac TRY harder at least with games like Resistance.

RPGs for PCs. Ok. Another practically dying breed unless your WoW. Adventure games, Sadly hardly any support. Strategy seems to be the only thing still thriving.

Sorry but PC gaming hasn't done really anything for the industry anymore except push one thing. Graphics. And If it does try to push something: no one supports it.

English; learn it!

 

[Netrat33]

Why the hate on Crysis? I'll be the first person to admit Crysis is more of a tech demo than a game. But it is innovative. Name one other game with even half of the features Crysis has? I can take a gun and use it to shoot down a tree which will fall on an enemy and kill them. Name one other game with even a semi destructible environment that's not completely obvious? Is it a good FPS? Not really. But it's more innovative than any FPS that's been released in years, especially the late Epic games.

Innovative? ...It's freaking Farcry.

 

[Netrat33]

English; learn it!

Drunk and I'm sure you understand me still and get the general point of my post.

 

[Kowan]

PC gamers don't mind ported games as long as the dev's take the extra time to offer decent settings/UI/KB-Mouse controls.
It's when they just port straight over, we wonder why we wasted money on it and wait for feedback instead of just grabbing their next title when it hits retail.

 

[illybang]

Innovative? ...It's freaking Farcry.

hahah. have you even played through the game?

crysis owns far cry. i loved every minute of this game. i don't know why so many people hate on it so much. in charts, this game was definitely a blockbuster hit. the only thing i hated was the ending.. and only because i wanted more!!!

seriously, crank up the settings if you have a capable system, and become fully immersed in the visuals, sounds, and journey. this game is amazing.

 

[illybang]

PC gamers don't mind ported games as long as the dev's take the extra time to offer decent settings/UI/KB-Mouse controls.
It's when they just port straight over, we wonder why we wasted money on it and wait for feedback instead of just grabbing their next title when it hits retail.

one of the ports i wanted the most but turned out to be one of the most utterless piece of crap failures i've ever seen was Resident Evil 4. NO MOUSE SUPPORT? WTF.

 

[g1xx3r]

Sorry but PC gaming hasn't done really anything for the industry anymore except push one thing. Graphics. And If it does try to push something: no one supports it.

PC gaming has been doing for the past 10+ years what consoles only today can do ie..FPS,online gaming,net browsing,music/video storage and playback..

Respect the architects..

 

[CodeX]

GOW ran great on my 360, and like shit on my P4 3.6/gf6800/2gb ram PC. expensive PC requirements are the problem.

LOL

Your computer is a piece of trash, you should uninstall any game made since 2003

 

[CodeX]

Sorry but PC gaming hasn't done really anything for the industry anymore except push one thing. Graphics. And If it does try to push something: no one supports it.

Sorry but PC gaming MADE the industry. Everything you consider revolutionary on consoles had been around for decades on PC. Are you like 10 years old or something?

 

[CKMorpheus]

I'm not gonna read through 9 pages of backwards whining, but I just wanted to comment on the original poster's words about Gears of War not being optimized for the PC. It runs silky smooth on my pc... *shrug*

 

[FreiDOg]

While I'm at it, I'm sorry, really the FPS genre is pretty much all the same with few exceptions. It's not like PC gaming really has done anything exceptional in this area for years. While companies like Insomniac TRY harder at least with games like Resistance.

Repetitive drivel is not a problem for PC games; it's a problem from gaming in general.
That, I think has far more to do with the mentality of developers and publishers than it does with the gaming audience. When you're making 'that game' to get major shelf space at retail it's assumed you'll be sinking 20-30 million dollars into the project before you see a dime in return. That is a serious discouragement to trying an unproven concept. This hits PC gaming the hardest because it's a smaller potential market right now than consoles. Instead of convincing 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 people to try a unique concept on a console, you need it to be 1 in 10 on PC.

Digital distribution is, perhaps, a savior form this cycle of bigger budgets and fewer risks. I know most of my PC games have been bought as downloads in the last few years, many of which are not, or at least not widely, available through retail.
Steam, PSN, XBLArcade, et al, are becoming a haven form the AAA title mentality you get on store shelves.

 

[Hamidxa]

When you start writing games cross platform, the better platform inherets all the restrictions and constraints of the weaker platform. Epic sold out, made more sales by appealing to the console audience and turning the PC version into utter crud.

They've become a company who are not willing to put the effort into making a truly good PC game, that is tailored for PC audience, rather they'd prefer to take the cheap option and give the PC users lower quality cross developed (or ported) games. This naturally results in lower PC sales, if they didn't fuck up some of the most basic elements of UT3 it would have sold a lot better.

I think if that's all their going to do, I'm not going to be sad to see them go, lets shift our support to people like Crytek who have taken the lead in developing next generation content and actually know how to build a solid PC game.

Spot on.

I think a lot of the "console hatred" exists because many long-standing PC gamers have seen their favorite franchises bastardized to run on a console and then ported back to PC with poor quality (not just a generic "ports are crap" mentality). Deus Ex, for example. PC gamers have come to expect deep and involving games which we almost never see on consoles.

Now of course it's true that game developers are out to make money, but I think that specifically in the case of the newer generation of consoles we're seeing many titles appearing simply to make the most money (even beyond titles like Need for Speed and Madden; I'm talking games like TimeShift). Nobody says any of the older gen game developers were altruistic, but behind most truly classic titles were game developers that really had a vision for a game they would like to make, and not just one which would garner the most market share.

I'm a longstanding PC gamer, and I'm not that bothered about Epic putting the PC in the "back seat." I don't think they've ever really had much of the same talent we see in a number of other developers (whether it's recognized or not), and UT3 exemplifies this.

The PC market can still sell quite well, and there are a number of titles which show this; I think it's mostly that the overall quality level of games has dropped (again, I believe at least partly attributable to these 'nex-gen' consoles), and therefore the number of people willing to buy these lower quality games once they've been ported back to their PC (with whatever issues they may have) dwindles. The developers of Mass Effect appear to be taking a different (and in my opinion, the correct) approach; they released the game for the 360, but rather than a slapdash port years later, they're reworking components of the game which will make it much better to play on the PC.

Well said.

Oh, no. Crysis is an unoptimized piece of crap and Far Cry looks better and I can't run at 3000x2000 with max. settings on my Radeon 200XPXTXXXGSX, multiplayer sucks blah blah blah. [/sarcasm]

Some people *deserve* consoles. The rest of us suffer for it.

 

[Hamidxa]

Console still use low res, most of the time can't manage full HD with decent looking games due to having fairly slow hardware, their settings are generally quite medium-low and they lack decent filtering or high levels of AA. Not to mention that some have unbearably low FPS.

As always you get what you pay for, and don't make the mistake of thinking that consoles are the only thing improving, they maybe tending towards PC's but PC's are improving at increasingly fast pace.

10 years ago we were using 640x480 with no filtering or any kind of image quality enhancemens, now we can run upto 2560x1600 with insenely good looking games.



Console are changing, and will continue to change, I believe they will eventually reach the point where they are more or less PC's, but as they approach closer to being PC's they inheret some of the problems associated with PC gaming, that lowers the benefits of them being consoles to begin with.



It should be noted however that consoles are converging towards being PC's not the other way around, I don't see PC's inhereting any of the traits specific to consoles.

In short PC gaming isn't dying, theres no proof of that nor has there ever been, it's an increasing market, just because console games out sell PC games does not mean that PC gaming is dying out. The fact is that consoles, their developers and users NEED PC's, games are developed on PC's, engines are developed on PC's, the tech that goes into consoles is tech thats lagging behind the PC, it's built by companies who make their primary revenue streams from PC hardware sales, hardware thats primarily used for gaming.

Without PC's, consoles 5-6 yearly updates would be far more expensive, and show less impressive growth, companies like Nvidia and AMD cannot rely alone on 6 yearly cycles from consoles to refresh their design and push out new tech.

So even if PC gaming dies out, which I personally believe will never happen (as long as theres people like me who are willing to pay more, for a better gaming experience) it would leave the console users more or less screwed anyhow.

QFT a second time.
A very pragmatic and logical take on the whole situation.

Let me restate myself. 1280x1024 looks like shit.

Did I confuse you?

Then I guess 99.99% of all console games look like shit, because more often than not, they aren't even approaching that resolution, and quite often have trouble with hitting 720P even.

If your point was to denigrate that resolution with respect to PC's, then you have inadvertently depreciated the entire spectrum of consoles and console games.

Innovative? ...It's freaking Far Cry.

They share a tropical theme, I didn't realize that made Crysis Far Cry.
There are in fact just as many differences between the two titles as there are similarities. And specifically, with regards to those similarities, it's an honor for a title to be equated with Far Cry, not a disparagement.

 

[CodeX]

Well said to everything in the above 2 posts.

You console fanboys need to keep in mind that:

- Console games are CREATED on PC's
- The hardware that runs them was designed for (or inherited their design from) PC hardware
- Many console game genres have their ORIGINS in PC gaming
- PC gaming pushes the technology used in consoles, NOT the other way around.
- Console games run at VERY low resolution compared to their PC counterpart and usually look worse than they do on a good PC
- Consoles are TURNING INTO PC's more and more with each generation, NOT the other way around
- Many of the features you enjoy in console gaming CAME FROM PC's (online multiplayer, voice chat, mouse/kb support, user modifiable content, saving/loading games, so called "achievements", etc etc)

Learn some respect.

 

[LoStMaTt]

GOW ran great on my 360, and like shit on my P4 3.6/gf6800/2gb ram PC. expensive PC requirements are the problem.

This is exactly why developers are moving to consoles. It is more cost efficient to develop games for a platform that changes only once every so many years.

With PC's you have to factor in OS compatibility , system requirements, and then on top of that test test test test and test some more.

I only play PC games and even I understand reasons why developers are abandoning support for the PC.

To be honest it is more cost efficient for gamers as well because they don't have to continually upgrade their rig to play the latest games.

 

[CodeX]

To be honest it is more cost efficient for gamers as well because they don't have to continually upgrade their rig to play the latest games.

That is the most annoying logical fallacy I have ever heard and it gets brought up in EVERY SINGLE thread about console and PC gaming...


Let me say this loud and clear...

YOU... DO... NOT... HAVE... TO... UPGRADE... YOUR... COMPUTER... ANY... MORE... OFTEN... THAN... YOU... HAVE... TO... BUY... A... NEW... CONSOLE...

Your computer won't get magically worse, you will be able to play the same games you can on it when you bought it. If new PC games come out with higher requirements TURN THE GODDAMN SETTINGS DOWN....they will likely still be higher than the console counterpart.

Likewise, your console won't get magically better either. By the end of your consoles life cycle PC games will look a ton better and the console games will look ancient, it happens every time, this is nothing new. You do NOT have to keep upgrading your computer to handle it though, you have the OPTION to do so, which you do not have with a console... options are NEVER bad things.

 

[CodeX]

Also, case in point... I am running hardware much older than the 360... (2gb, 6800gt, Athlon 2200+... ancient) YET I am able to play Bioshock JUST FINE with high settings and medium (1280x1024) resolution and it LOOKS and RUNS just as good as it does on the 360

Imagine that, a computer built a full year before the 360 came out runs a 360 game just as well as it does. And, if I had modern hardware, I could run it with higher visual quality and higher resolution than the 360 could ever dream of.

 

[N3mi5is]

To be honest it is more cost efficient for gamers as well because they don't have to continually upgrade their rig to play the latest games.

Not really. I need a pc, for word docs, finances, news, communication etc.

I don't need a console.

So why not spend a little bit more on a quality pc, and game on it. Then spend extra money for a console thats sole purpose is to game, and all of the games for consoles are at least 10$ more, and pc games drop in price alot faster, and have ALOT longer life-span (communities, modding etc).

 

[Hamidxa]

This is exactly why developers are moving to consoles. It is more cost efficient to develop games for a platform that changes only once every so many years.

With PC's you have to factor in OS compatibility , system requirements, and then on top of that test test test test and test some more.

I only play PC games and even I understand reasons why developers are abandoning support for the PC.

To be honest it is more cost efficient for gamers as well because they don't have to continually upgrade their rig to play the latest games.

Not true. It's not as complicated as you make it out to be.
Besides, the user whom you were addressing has a PC that is 4 years old now.
Let's see how Gears of War would fare on an Xbox Original

*Master of the Obvious Moment*:
Then of course a PC has literally infinite uses.
A console, for all intents and purposes has only one, and even that it's handicapped in due to its inferior and limited hardware, especially 1-2 years after its release.

A PC has no such limitations imposed on it, but then again, the common denominator principle usually applies.

At any rate, consoles are not inherently a more profitable platform than PC's.

Two Words: Royalty Fees

How soon we forget the $15-$20 variable expenses per each game sale that goes out of the developers pockets and into those of the console manufacturers.

PC developers dont have to worry about those types of ridiculous fees that eat away at 20-50% of their potential profits.

So naturally, console devs *HAVE* to sell more games for them to break even, than do PC devs, usually by a factor of 2.5 to 1 due to the variable costs associated with royalty fees.

In fact, read this article: http://video-games-1.blogspot.com/2007/07/video-games-video-game-console-wars.html

4 If you want to make money publishing video games, your best bet is the Wii, according to Lazard Capital Markets analyst Colin Sebastian. Third-party video game publishers pay a royalty to the console companies for the right to develop system-specific software. Since games for the various systems have different pricing structures, breakeven points vary. Mr. Sebastian assumes a standard retail price of $49 per Wii game, a $9 royalty fee, and another $7 to $9 for licensing and distribution, as well as fixed expenses of $7.5-million. That results in a breakeven point after selling about 300,000 units per Wii title, compared to roughly 600,000 units for both Xbox 360 and PS3.

That's pretty sad when you think about it.
Due to the royalty, licensing, and distribution fees that go to the console manufacturers, when taking the average game into consideration, you have to:
a) Sell 300,000 units on the Wii in order to break even
b) Sell 600,000 units on the X360 in order to break even
c) Sell 600,000 units on the PS3 in order to break even

Good luck with that!

 

[defiant007]

This is exactly why developers are moving to consoles. It is more cost efficient to develop games for a platform that changes only once every so many years.

No....for the same reasons you cannot run GoW on a console from 4 - 5 years ago, how can anyone with an ounce of intelligence expect to run it on PC hardware from 4 - 5 years ago. This stupid argument really should not be given any credence.

 

[Frosteh]

This is a point I've made before and I'd just like to make again.

Lets take a trip to a decent online games distributor for the UK www.play.com and take a look at the top games out now, and of those lets take a look at games which have been distributed for both the PC and a console platform (so there can be no argument that one game is inherently more expensive than another)

Need For Speed: ProStreet (Xbox360) our price: £39.99
Need For Speed: ProStreet (PC) our price: £24.99
Blacksite (PS3) our price: £39.99
Blacksite (PC) our price: £17.99
Half-Life2 The Orange Box (PS3) our price: £39.99
Half-Life2 The Orange Box (PC) our price: £26.99
Unreal Tournament 3 (PS3) our price: £39.99
Unreal Tournament 3 (PC) our price: £17.99
Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (PS3) our price: £39.99
Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (PC) our price: £17.99
Call of Duty 4 (PS3) our price: £39.99
Call of Duty 4 (PC) ur price: £29.99
Soldier of Fortune: Payback (PS3) our price: £32.99
Soldier of Fortune: Payback (PC) our price: £17.99

Total price difference £15+£22+£13+£22+£22+£10+£15 = £119

Average saved per game for PC £119/7 = £17

So for 10 games right now (~£170), you can get a 8800 GTS 640Mb source

This is just how the console business model works, you pay less for the hardware (sony/microsoft actually make a loss on selling consoles) and then you pay more for your games because sony/microsoft charge the publishers royalty fees for using their platform, this increase in cost gets pushed back to the consumer.

If you only buy 1-2 games a year then fine, consoles are cheaper, end of story.

If you buy lots of games then consoles can actually end up a fair bit more expensive, I buy at least 20 games a year, and thats a conservative estimate, so for me personally thats at least 20x£17 or at least £340 a year saved, assuming an average lifespan of about 3 years for a good gaming PC thats £1,020 saved, give or take (thats $2,000+ for you americans). And after 3 years I get a ton of upgrades which make the PC look about 4x nicer than the consoles which are still running games that don't look significantly visually better than when the platform was first released.

 

[Canadian in Berlin]

If you buy lots of games then consoles can actually end up a fair bit more expensive, I buy at least 20 games a year, and thats a conservative estimate, so for me personally thats at least 20x£17 or at least £340 a year saved, assuming an average lifespan of about 3 years for a good gaming PC thats £1,020 saved, give or take (thats $2,000+ for you americans). And after 3 years I get a ton of upgrades which make the PC look about 4x nicer than the consoles which are still running games that don't look significantly visually better than when the platform was first released.

Your math and mine line up. The money saved on games (that I get more enjoyment out of and have a better (for me personally) control system, as well as mods... in turns pays for the next upgrade down the line.

Then there is the increased utility and the fact that in the modern world a PC IS mandatory... email, internet. I'm also a hobby photographer/photochopper/animator, and all of these things benefit from the more powerful gaming computer as well.

Try running lightroom on a prehistoric beast of a machine (email/internet rig)... its not pleasant. Running lightroom on my gaming PC is quick and makes tweaking my photos quick and stupidly easy. (/shameless plugging of a program I think is great).

 

[Frosteh]

Yeah these are also good points, many people already have PC's and it's often only a video card/RAM upgrade thats needed to make it a reasonably good gaming machine. In the same respect that most people ignore the cost of TV in the price of having a console, it's just assumed that everyone has one.

Not to mention with a smaller production cycle (1.5 years on average) vidoe cards/CPU's can be sold off for a decent price and help pay for the next bit of kit, with consoles by the end of their lifespan they're not really worth anything.

Your first 8800 GTS might cost £200 but chances are when the 9800 GTS (or equivelent) is out you will still be able to flog your 8800GTS for reasonable price and upgrade at minimal cost to yourself, so the 2nd installment might not be 200 but closer to 100, same for the 3rd,4th etc.

 

[Noncommittal]

It should be noted however that consoles are converging towards being PC's not the other way around, I don't see PC's inhereting any of the traits specific to consoles.

I would argue that they are. Many people are taking their PC from under thier desk and putting into their electronics rack, right next to consoles. Aside from the obivous physical similarities, this is indictative of a larger trend. The PC is becoming extremely dumbed down and plug and play(Media Center, etc.). That's the goal at least. Also, for some time PCs have been used as tuners and dvrs, and now consoles are following suit. Is this consoles converging towards PCs? Or perhaps it's PCs and consoles converging towards cable boxes?

In general, yes I would agree that the trend is that consoles are becoming more PC like, but the PC is also changing, more to the point, diverging. The parts of the computer we use to entertain ourselves are going to migrate off of the PC and into the future consoles we buy. I also think that the upgrade period for consoles will shrink, and upgrades will be required more often, on the other hand, PCs will be upgraded less often.

If general computing is your goal (email, word processing, internet, etc), then even todays cheapest PC will suit your needs. Gaming, media, and other entertainment applications are some of the largest reasons people upgrade their machine. That, and dumb people will go buy a new PC if their install of Windows breaks. The other major force is productivity(graphics, CAD, audio, etc.), which also requries people to upgrade their machine.

My opinion is that PCs will diverge in the coming decade or two and most entertainment features will migrate to the new entertainment platform, which will be a cable box, pc, console hybrid. It just makes sense. We may even have some 4k displays by then. The PC will be a productivity center and the console will be an entertainment center. I don't think it's far fetched looking at the PS3 right now. In Europe there are cable attachments for it, and it can be used as a DVR. You can install Linux on it, use a mouse and keyboard, browse the internet, and stream music. You can digitally download movies on the 360, much like the Apple TV. Storage is the one thing I think PCs and consoles of the future will share though. They will be like Siamese twins.

Of course, this prediction is only good until 2029, when Ray Kurzweil has fortold that computers will have AI matching man's. Then they will launch our nuclear weapons against our enemies causing World War 3. In the aftermath of which we will have to fight for the future of mankind under the leadership of one John Conner.

 

[Silus]

I think a lot of the "console hatred" exists because many long-standing PC gamers have seen their favorite franchises bastardized to run on a console and then ported back to PC with poor quality (not just a generic "ports are crap" mentality). Deus Ex, for example. PC gamers have come to expect deep and involving games which we almost never see on consoles.

Exactly. PC Gamers were just not treated with respect, after so many years, supporting and making software houses what they are today. UT and Epic, are the perfect examples of this. They want to prioritize development to consoles ? What else is new anyway, given what they did with UT3 ? It's just one more game I won't buy from them and at this rate, I'll never buy anything from them anymore.

 

[Frosteh]

I would argue that they are. Many people are taking their PC from under thier desk and putting into their electronics rack, right next to consoles.

This isn't an attribute of the PC itself but the people who use it, functionally the PC is no different because of it.

Aside from the obivous physical similarities, this is indictative of a larger trend. The PC is becoming extremely dumbed down and plug and play(Media Center, etc.). That's the goal at least. Also, for some time PCs have been used as tuners and dvrs, and now consoles are following suit. Is this consoles converging towards PCs? Or perhaps it's PCs and consoles converging towards cable boxes?

The PC isn't dumbed down, it's ever more complex, it's just that more of the features are becoming automated by windows, driver installations and IRQ assignments are all automatic now a days, but the back end is still largely the same, and you can still tweak this stuff manually if you know what you're doing.

You don't need tv tuners and cable recievers in your PC for it to operate, these are entirely optional components which are available for you to install at your own discretion, it's really a case of what you want from your PC functionality wise.

In general, yes I would agree that the trend is that consoles are becoming more PC like, but the PC is also changing, more to the point, diverging. The parts of the computer we use to entertain ourselves are going to migrate off of the PC and into the future consoles we buy. I also think that the upgrade period for consoles will shrink, and upgrades will be required more often, on the other hand, PCs will be upgraded less often.

Whether you stop using your PC for watching media is entirely up to you, I expect some people would prefer to move towards consoles for viewing their multimedia and thats fair enough, but you'll always be able to do it on a PC.

I have my doubts about console hardware cycles shortening, the console business model needs to make the hardware attractive to buyers and as such is sold at a loss, usualy quite a big loss. There needs to be a certain amount of return from game sales before an overall profit is made, this puts a hard cap on the minimum life cycle of consoles, unless the business model changes, in which case you're going to be paying a fair bit more for your console.

I don't see PC upgrades slowing, technology drives technology, it grows at an exponential rate, I find it hard to see it slowing down.

My opinion is that PCs will diverge in the coming decade or two and most entertainment features will migrate to the new entertainment platform, which will be a cable box, pc, console hybrid. It just makes sense

A PC can already do all those things, thats my point and really puts the spotlight on the power of the PC. If you have the right hardware, it's just a case of people deciding to use the machine in that way. I don't have a TV in my living room, I have my PC setup with a 30" monitor and i watch all my media through it, TV episodes, Movies and play games.

I dont need a set top box, an audio system, cable, entertainment centre, console, TV, and all that rubbish, i just buy a decent PC and eliminate the rest. It's a much better thing to do in my opinion, but it's not as easily accessible for the average joe, thats why microsoft are coming out with all the new entertainment centre software to make it easier, if people catch on it maybe enough to kill all the other individual components off. Who wants to pay a load of money for a dedicated blu-ray player when you can just grab a blu-ray optical drive for a fraction of the price and whack it in your PC?

 

[Canadian in Berlin]

optional components which are available for you to install at your own discretion, it's really a case of what you want from your PC functionality wise.

Thats where PC > Console.

A PC can already do all those things, thats my point and really puts the spotlight on the power of the PC. If you have the right hardware, it's just a case of people deciding to use the machine in that way. I don't have a TV in my living room, I have my PC setup with a 30" monitor and i watch all my media through it, TV episodes, Movies and play games.

Sometimes I do several of those at the same time. Some games with a slower pace I play with movies running in the background (with the program set to always on top).

Who wants to pay a load of money for a dedicated blu-ray player when you can just grab a blu-ray optical drive for a fraction of the price and whack it in your PC?

or a TV Tuner and a 500GB HD instead of a TiVo.

 

[Frosteh]

Thats where PC > Console.

Sometimes I do several of those at the same time. Some games with a slower pace I play with movies running in the background (with the program set to always on top).

or a TV Tuner and a 500GB HD instead of a TiVo.

Yup with a 30" 2560x1600 monitor it's like having 4x 1280x800 screens, so you can have World of Warcraft in 1280x800 window in one quater, a browser window in another quater, a movie window in another quater and something like MSN/IRC in the other.

I'm actually trying to find some software to get picture in picture working, I want to watch eps of family guy in a small window while playing games like TF2 full screen, anyone know of anything that can do this?

 

[RESTfulADI]

you would have to run TF2 in windowed mode to start, and find a media player that has a "always on top" option, maybe VLC?

 

[Canadian in Berlin]

I think it works better when doing stuff like PvE grinding in MMOs, or turn based strategy games.

 

[aznpxdd]

Did somebody in here just compared a HTPC to a console?

 

[PopeKevinI]

To be honest it is more cost efficient for gamers as well because they don't have to continually upgrade their rig to play the latest games.

That's *if* you think of the PC as a dedicated gaming machine (hint: it's not).

I need a PC for work. That's going to cost me, bare minimum, $400.

I'd like something with some performance so I can do photo and video editing. Bigger HDD, RAM increase, and CPU upgrade. That will run the price of the computer up to about $700.

Oh, and some gaming, too. Video card: add $300.

Every couple of years, I buy a new video card in the $250 price range. My 8800GT is the most expensive I've ever bought, at $300. I upgrade the rest of my system as I see the need, and that need is generally NOT dictated by gaming. My hard drive capacity, RAM count, and CPU speed were all dictated by non-gaming needs/wants...in other words, I'd have done it anyway.

Will I be able to run the latest games in a year or two with my current hardware? Most of them.

Will a console be able to play the latest console game released in a year or two? If it's released on THAT console. Oh yeah...if you want to be able to play any given console release in the next few years, you'll need to have all three consoles. That's about $1,000 in consoles, and that's after price cuts. Add a few hundred if you bought them at release...you know, so you can play the latest games.