Next-Gen consoles = Death of PC Gaming?

jonneymendoza said:
by teh time both these consoles are out, pc's will become more powerful...
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about power, it's about development...my 2 cents...
 
Don't like the atlon part huh? ;) There are really a lot of different meanings in that. Game devs are already complaining about how the X360 and the PS3 are not as optimal as you'd think with all that power when it comes to things like A.I. The most inovative concept I've heard so far is the ATi graphics in the X360. Multi-core is more of a me-too coming to a PC near you. The price point on a console is really tempting, I'll probably buy one. And hopefully with consoles develoopers get on the multi-threaded bandwagon. And yes... I've had a long standing good relationship with AMD. Dual Core and PPU holds just as much if not more promise then "the cell." It will also be easier to put my prometia on it. :p I dunno... the graphics portion is already set to be even-stevens come launches if you ask me. The price difference is there but honestly I think their might be no catchup to be played at all! The price would be ludicrous but there very likely will be 7800GTX's SLI'd out there.


Can't argue the price point and mass appeal on consoles. But the guy in the article this thread is about was seriously discounting PC's technology catch-up. OooO look at the fancy pics and the oodles of processory and T flops! Computer gamers usually have something worthy of not ditching cause a cool console is out. My comp is hotness and I don't recall ever thinking gosh I don't have 2 thousand dollars to spend on my comp, however am I going to play Quake4. And when my new hot x360 has lost its hotness like my PS2 has for me for about two years now, my semi-regularly updated PC is steadfast, and also satisfies my inner geek. :) ;)
 
halcyon said:
I don't necessarily agree that PC gaming will die, but I think a LOT more people will consider their stance on the situation. The primary reason being.. $$$$..

Lets think about this. To get an R520, one of the top versions that doesnt have its pipes crippled, will likely be over $500. Now to get full use out of that you have to have a pretty fast cpu, at least I would say a 3+ghz P4, or a 3200+ A64. Theres another ~200 for cpu, ~100 for mobo, and ~125 for ram (assuming 512mb). Now your up to $900, throw in your hard drives, optical drive, case, expensive PSU since your card sucks juice, oh and fancy lcd's.. which puts you easily over $1k for a system that is capable of actually playing games at 1920x1080 resolution... and a screen that can do that is another $1k.

Contrast that to a console that is only going to cost around $500.. there is a serious price discrepancy there.

I just hope graphics card people stop charging such obscene amounts for cards... 1 card costs more than an entire console system... its out of wack.
Click to expand...

You specified a top of the line PC. How much does a top of the line home theater system that lets you play your XBOX360 at it's fullest potential cost?
 
I have to agree with josephunh and sc0tty8. I don't like consoles because of the gamepads being too uncomfortable. I also wouldn't want to play in the den on a TV with the cats pouncing all over the place and possibly wake my mother-in-law up. Now Steve and other's mentioned HDTV, how long do you think it will be before the pc industry takes advantage of HD monitors, either in CRT or LCD? Heck, even the porn industry is well on it's way to delivering HD downloadable movies. Now, if you can tell me that you can play a console with a keyboard and a headset, then yes, maybe I will buy a HDTV and a console, (which incidentally would cost roughly the same if not more than a comparable pc gaming system) but I doubt I would buy an HDTV just for gaming. The author of the article gives a price/performance ratio but I have to say that he forgets one golden rule of gaming hardware. Eveyone knows not to buy the latest and greatest in gaming hardware, go with the hardware just below that, for at least half the price. That rule applies to most young players in a market who can't afford a high end system. Plus, since the age bracket is between 16 and 19 for gaming, most are also in school and have parents who would rather spend on a pc that can do homework and play games. I am not in school anymore and between you and me, I'd rather play my pc games alone, away from my wife so I don't wake her up when some fool kills me and I start yelling. :D
 
I've been using the same system for over two years now and while I could really use an upgrade, I'm not feeling inclined too go forth with one. I've been a pretty dedicated gamer for most of my life (started with NES and eventually a 386dx/33), and while I now rarely play console games (even then it's usually with an emulator on PC) and I love Quake 3 to death and do dabble with Doom 3, I'm not really interested at all in most new PC games or console games coming out. (I do love old PC games though, I have a dedicated P75 with an MT-32 just for playing old PC games, but even that is almost pointless now because of DOSbox.)

What games interest me? Quake 4 will be pretty cool, I'm sure, and my 9700 and 512mb ram really kind of hurt with Doom 3... so instead of spending money to buy new/more ram, a new video card, and a new motherboard and cpu, I'm seriously thinking about just going with xbox360 to save some money and not have to worry about constantly buying new parts for my PC so I can play games that don't stutter. With the inevitable "hacking" of xbox360 hardware allowing it to run other software, possibly made for a pc, I'm starting to see owning a gaming PC as being a bit moot.

I have a PC to browse the web, check email, chat, do real work with, etc. I'd have an xbox360 to play the "latest" games. Of course, I'm assuming that since Quake 4 will be released for this system, that all of the major PC titles will follow suit, seeing as how FFXI has proven it can do VERY well with a console+PC userbase playing the same game together. This is the plan I'm perceiving from Microsoft.. and possibly Sony, seeing as how they will be very entwined with Epic and their new Unreal engine, and since there will be many developers using both Epic and Id's engines regardless of their target platforms.

If this does happen and xbox360 does get all of the major PC titles for several years, what point is there in owning a a PC for gaming?

Are you a die hard keyboard and mouse fan? I know I am one, for sure. I hate playing FPS with anything less. Seeing as how PS3 and xbox360 will both have USB ports, will this even be an issue? There would be absolutely no reason for companies bring their PC-targetted games to these consoles just to remove the keyboard and mouse support when these ports are readily avaialable with the consoles' companies touting their expansive ports and features.

LAN parties? Maybe xbox360 will be modular enough to work well in that kind of environment. Just bring a display, keyboard, mouse, controller, headphones, and whatever else you need -- just like any other LAN party. You would, of course, be lacking in the file sharing department... or would you? Regardless of any points I attempted to make, though, there will be things you can only do with a PC at LAN parties, or at least do effeciently, and that's something that will not change for quite a while.

The argument is always made that since console hardware is static, the graphics will only look amazing when the consoles are first released and will then begin to look pale in comparison to PC games. While I agree with this to some extent, do most PC games really look that much better than the latest console games? There are only a few games that are really pushing graphic boundaries with the PC. Most companies seem to be focusing more on the widest range of consumers that will buy their game because they will actually be able to run the game. Console graphics always improve as the console ages, as well. So what we see today potentially will look grimy near the end of the console's life. Remember the first PSX games? Those were horrid, but people thought they were amazing when they were first released. Compare those games to the game enar the end of the console's life and you can see a huge improvement. It's like that with every console. Near the end of the console's life there will undoubtedly be some new super PC game running Unreal engine 5.0 that will blow the console away, but does that really matter when the next generation of consoles will be coming out just a months later? It's sort of like Doom 3. Doom 3 for PC was pretty revolutionary, while the console version looked amazing and some proclaimed it to be the "best" looking console game ever, it just didn't look as good as the PC version. Now these new consoles will supposedly be able to run the game engine and still have tons of horsepower left to do whatever else they need to do... or run a much more powerful engine. Seeing as how the Doom 3 engine is still very new, there will still be people using this engine for many years, just like the Quake 3 engine. So if games are still going to be developed using the same engine, why is the console hardware such an issue when the horsepower required will not be a problem at all?

I seriously doubt PC gaming will die any time soon, but I do think these new consoles will take a chunk out of the market due to people like me. I love PC gaming, but it just doesn't seem like it's worth the effort anymore. I guess this is coming from an ex-die hard gamer that is becoming just another casual gamer. Just trying to keep an open mind.
 
An article comes out like this every time a set of new consoles is around the corner...
 
Sly said:
You specified a top of the line PC. How much does a top of the line home theater system that lets you play your XBOX360 at it's fullest potential cost?
Click to expand...

...no. A top-of-the-line PC would be an FX55 with two SLi 6800 Ultras and would cost significantly more than what was listed.
 
OK, I'm tired and there are too many posts to read right now, so apologies if someone said this previously.

The issue is not which "platform" is better - it's which games are better. PC games, in my PC gamer snob opinion, are better than console "video games" in two ways:

1. PCs are not static, therefore, as always, standard levels of PC technology will eclipse next-gen consoles VERY quickly, generating games that consoles can't run.

2. PC games have always been... different. None of you should need further explanation of that.

The guy seemed to be saying people would defect due to high costs, but that would have happened already if it were going to. People ALREADY HAVE PCs. They're not so dumb as to not be able to upgrade their card for the price of a console. If they are, they can be educated.

P.S. Consoles will not kill PC gaming - Microsoft will. By turning PCs into consoles. Or is that the other way around? Maybe 50/50.
 
All this talk about "PC gaming" and "console gaming" is bullshit. In a year or two, there won't be any such thing. There'll just be "gaming". With the exception of niche titles and certain games that only play well on the PC (RTS games come to mind) PCs and consoles will have the exact same games.

Look at PC gaming's big titles this year:

Doom 3 (already on Xbox)
Half Life 2 (coming fall to Xbox)
The Sims 2 (coming to Xbox/PS2)
World of Warcraft (likely coming to X360 - no reason why it couldn't)
Battlefield 2 (coming to X360, cut-down version coming to Xbox/PS2)

We're looking at a ton of FPS games, some MMOs (Guild Wars comes to mind), and some cross-platform titles already (Splinter Cell). I don't see any reason why those games can't be developed and released on both PC and console. In the future, it won't just be the crappy games that get ported for a quick buck - developers are going to make one game, whether it's budget or triple-A, and publishers will put it on anything that will run it.

There will always be crappy budget titles, and there will always be blockbusters (sometimes good, sometimes overhyped and underwhelming). But I don't think the platform a game is on is a determining factor in whether a game is good, and gamers will be able to enjoy quality titles (or buy shitty ones cheaply) regardless of how they choose to play.

Also, I don't entirely understand the stereotype of console gamers as morons, cretins, idiots, etc. It's not like owning a gaming PC classifies you as some sort of genius. Maintaining a working gaming PC is simply not the challenge it was in the old days, so it's pointless to presume that someone is smarter just because they can follow the directions on the glossy poster-size directions that came with their hardware. Furthermore, while it's true that intellectually challenging fare is likely to appeal to a smaller subset of the market, the idea that a gamer is stupid because they enjoy simpler games is elitist bullshit.
 
I believe, from what was said by dev's, that we will see a lack of exclusivity of AAA PC games being only on the PC. My only concern, since I play only a few games, is that in the next round, the doom3's farcry's and HL2's will be made for less powered system, and ported up without any real enhancement to performance and graphics. I don't care if consoles get all my PC games, as long as my more powerful (and more expensive) PC can play the game with more effects, better AI and better graphics generally. If this is not the case, this will be the biggest problem, because I will really question the need to upgrade my perfectly good computer every two years at the cost of a console that has been out for two years and is getting my PC games at the same quality.

For those who say if the next consoles use KB/Mouse, I ask, in all seriousness, how do you plan to use that comfortably in your living room? Sitting on the floor at the coffee table? I sense severe carpal tunnel syndrome if this happens, and my point is that even if these consoles use KB and mouse, unless you are sitting at your desk, it still is not feasible.

I agree with what has been said that developers are the make or break in this issue. As I had mentioned, dev's need to keep making games for the PC, and if the game is multi-platform, it needs to be better on the PC. Unless, of course, the PS3 is the supercomputer they say it is, then my arguement is moot. But i have a feeling this won't be the case. Again, my focus is all on the dev's. Consider this. If the next consoles are more powerful then PC's for 2 years (at an extreme), and a game like HL2 or Doom3 comes out for the console, which can now run games at PC-like resolutions, and it actually runs graphically better on the console that costs less than a top PC video card, what would you do? I know that the reason I play games on my PC (FPS's, at least), is because they have the best image quality. If the consoles have the better graphics, or, alternatively, if the consoles cause the big budget AAA PC games to go multiplatform and be dumbed down on the PC, I will have a hard time justifying upgrading my computer in the future for gaming purposes.
 
Numbers alone are a superficial way to gauge the entertainment experience, game developers are not going to care if someone has the fastest computer on earth, it's not their target. Most games are preconceived with a console version in mind, a business wouldn't have it any other way. You'll get what the console gets in the staggering majority of cases, occasionally one version will have a few features over the other. But your computer will almost ALWAYS be dependent on console hardware and lower-end PC hardware (every game you enjoy is not even close to being designed around a 6800, save maybe a little feature in the options menu). If someone so deeply and utterly cherishes a moderate bump in texture & screen resolution, by all means, let them spend the exorbitant cash and claim superiority.

I just finished Doom 3 on the Xbox and it was frankly a better experience than the computer version, and any reviewer or fan that has actually played both will tell you the same thing. They fixed so many design issues (this was an objective for the developers), co-op with standard voice chat was incredible, and it looked, ran, sounded, and felt fantastic with superb support for home theater equipment. This was all on a $150 box and a $7 Blockbuster rental. I am about to go check out TRON 2.0: Killer App with all of its extras.

The argument that HDTVs are expensive is rather misguided, since everyone is eventually going to need to get one, console gamer or not, and they can already be had for as low as $500 (or just use a LCD PC monitor, but they are tiny and are similarly expensive). An HDTV will likely last you 10-15 years, and a console 5. That's a pretty good investment in my opinion.

When it comes to the platform experience and convenience, I think consoles will always stay on top, even if their techincal specs fall behind, which really means nothing in the first place, because a business will not make a game that cannot techincally run on a console. Consoles set the bar for what each generation for gaming will be like, that's why you aren't seeing next-gen games until the new consoles are out.

But if you value amatuer fan content and strategy games, stick with PC; although everyone likely already has a PC that can run most strategy games anyways, so it's not really integral to this argument. I honestly am pretty underwhelmed with fan content, I prefer the mods and downloads I get with Xbox Live (Hurricane Pack anyone?). This'll grow with the new Xbox Live Marketplace, where downloadable content actually passes through Quality Control before being released.

Oh, and the argument that consoles are for dumb people is the most laughably adolescent thing I've ever heard, nothing about a console prevents someone from making artistic, immersive, thought-provoking games. I am sick of that argument about as much as I'm sick of disdainful indie music snobs. If someone thinks convoluted control schemes and interfaces, as well as fiddling with settings and configurations, makes a game more "intelligent", let them have their fantasy. I prefer the luxury of getting right into the game.
 
It will be great when someone in Eastern Europe comes up with a Crack to run VM ware on the PS3. Then we can all buy cheap consoles, use them as PC's and Gaming Consoles.


My next PC just might be a PS3!!!!!!!!!! :D
 
killing of PC gaming + killing entertaming on PC = linux rise to power those are the only things holding me from going linux.

+ not forget about apple posible entering the X86 market now
M$ shooting them self in to foot

i bet they will be releasing some games under microsoft studios ported to PC or else linux will be alll over PCs :cool:


they have to be very careful
on the positite side if this happens we all be gettings windows for cheap now when linux and apple attack. competition rules
M$ will be the next nintendo and after a few year's they go the same way as sega lol

----rip
M$ 2049
--- :D


they attacking them self

they should have keep on going with xbox 1 architecture X86 and bring xbox and PC gaming together make both world happy more games for PC & cheap consoles for kids that play the same games @ 720p & make them pay for xbox live/and charge for right to write games for there PC console
sadly no one knows what will happen now............ :(
 
Kevin Lowe said:
Also, I don't entirely understand the stereotype of console gamers as morons, cretins, idiots, etc. It's not like owning a gaming PC classifies you as some sort of genius. Maintaining a working gaming PC is simply not the challenge it was in the old days, so it's pointless to presume that someone is smarter just because they can follow the directions on the glossy poster-size directions that came with their hardware. Furthermore, while it's true that intellectually challenging fare is likely to appeal to a smaller subset of the market, the idea that a gamer is stupid because they enjoy simpler games is elitist bullshit.
Click to expand...

I think it stemmed from the idea that a great majority of the popular console games are made like they were meant for people with short attention span and is not based on the users hardware knowledge. Command and Conquer didn't really become a hit on the console, Swat and Ghost recon type games are extremely rare. The frustration factor and precision needed would deter most console gamers unless they were made user friendly like SyphonFilter (Spellcheck pls). Same goes for simulators, especially flight sims.

There are plenty of console rentals here and it seems the most popular ones rented are the wrestling smackdowns, basketballs, fighting, and maybe a third person shooter or two. In the rareflight sims, instead of taking off from the tarmac, you start at 30,000 feet with enemies already in front of you, all you have to do is line up and shoot (apparently, button smashing also applies to flight sims in consoles).

PC rentals are also aplenty in our area, more popular actually, popular games are the various strategy types (C&C variants, WC variants, etc.), Online (Ragnarok, MU, Gunbound, etc.), FPS (CS, BF, COD, etc.). Sims and the like are also pretty popular for some reason, but not as popular as the first three. Most of the customers there couldn't even setup their headphones without help, is that hardware knowledge?
 
Sly said:
Command and Conquer didn't really become a hit on the console
Click to expand...

Yeah, but who wants to play an RTS with a controller pad? I don't think that one had anything to do with the mental abilities of the players.
 
Osiris said:
Yeah, but who wants to play an RTS with a controller pad? I don't think that one had anything to do with the mental abilities of the players.
Click to expand...

Well, i just used it incase someone uses it as an example that RTS games also exist on consoles. It's been brought up before :p

EDIT: If you want to really compare. Rather than looking at what's popular on the forums (which is populated by [H]ardcore players) go to your local Console rental and check out what the people there are playing. Then go to your local PC rental and check out what those guys are playing. You'll see what the average joe is really into. They make up a considerable number of the gaming population, not the [H] ones. :)
 
In addition, I'd argue that a traditional console RPG is pretty mentally challenging...whereas...a FPS on PC not so much...Then you have games like SimCity 4, which is hard as hell: I think the sophistication issue is moot.
 
sfuller said:
In addition, I'd argue that a traditional console RPG is pretty mentally challenging...whereas...a FPS on PC not so much...Then you have games like SimCity 4, which is hard as hell: I think the sophistication issue is moot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, RPG's are s about the best genre going for them, with all the RPG's released on the console, there's bound to be some good ones, out of how many console RPG's released, how many were exceptional? When comparing the console RPG vs PC RPG. Which is more mentally challenging? The usual story based one on the console where you control a specific character? Or the PC one which is usually centered around you making your own one and deciding on it's stats according to your gamestyle?

Not that all console RPG's are that way, but most console RPG's have you controlling a premade character and running him through his paces, they're also usually judged mostly by their eyecandy. PC RPG's on the other hand usually has you making your own character out of a template based on race, occupation, etc. and let's you go from there, the character representation on screen aren't as pretty though.

When comparing console FPS and PC FPS, which is better?
 
PC style RPGs are on the consoles now (KOTOR, Arx Fatalis, Jade Empire), and so are almost all the FPS games. Generally with new features to boot, Doom 3 was a better experience on the Xbox to those who have actually played both, with many design issues fixed, co-op with voice-chat for more tactical nuance, force feedback for gun recoil, still looked fantastic, etc. In the next generation, you will probably not see an FPS or PCRPG that doesn't hit the console. RTS and cursor-driven games (you know, like old PCRPGs) obviously work better with a mouse because they use a mouse pointer, so they remain a computer asset, it has nothing to do with "intelligence". I don't really see any basis to most of your claims. Sales are irrelevant, the console crowd is obviously much wider and can't be properly compared, lots of niche groups. But the games are still available, and in the future that availability will be even more prominent, because it would be financial suicide for a company to do a PC-only release.

I'll say it again, nothing about a console prevents you from making a game that's artistic and mentally challenging. There are still some complex PC-only games out there right now, I'm not denying that, but the landscape is changing dramatically to multi-platform releases. People thinking they're some kind of PC smartgamer is conceited and haughty bullshit. (all that fantasy and war dreck is tantamount to fine art for the sophisticated, yes? PC-style games are in more of a creative slump than consoles these days, honestly)
 
Abysmal said:
I'll say it again, nothing about a console prevents you from making a game that's artistic and mentally challenging. There are still some complex PC-only games out there right now, I'm not denying that, but the landscape is changing dramatically to multi-platform releases. People thinking they're some kind of PC smartgamer is conceited and haughty bullshit. (all that fantasy and war dreck is tantamount to fine art for the sophisticated, yes? PC-style games are in more of a creative slump than consoles these days, honestly)
Click to expand...
The argument for me, and it has been proven by Developers actually admiting it freely. Is the dumbing down, or should I say,simplification of Multiplatform Titles to adhere to the limitations of consols controllers.

There isn't any more room for buttons on controllers. And it controllers were made larger, people would bitch up and down. I believe that was the case with X-Box I think. I could be wrong though.

Anyway, It's not some being Haughty. It's more of the feeling that games will be less feature packed, due to it being develpoed for the console and merely ported over to the PC just to get a few $.

I know I'd be pissed if I couldn't Lean feature in a FPS, just becasue consoles don't have enough buttons to allow that feature in a FPS. Not a great example but you get my point.
 
All you have to do to see the writing on the wall is to go to Electronic Boutique and look at the PC game section size compared to the console. The space set aside for each product tells it all. Profit is the driving factor and in the last 5 years consoles have pushed the PC section into smaller and smaller areas in the store.
 
Mindriot said:
The argument for me, and it has been proven by Developers actually admiting it freely. Is the dumbing down, or should I say,simplification of Multiplatform Titles to adhere to the limitations of consols controllers.
Click to expand...

If a game needs that many keyboard functions, and it's not a simulator of some kind, then it's sloppy design. Even games that were wholly designed around the PC with all kinds of functionality like Deus Ex 1, and later released to console as an afterthought, remained intact control-wise (and even added a new function). Counter-Strike is another great example of taking a convoluted mess of an interface and making it intuitive for the controller, while keeping everything intact. I've been playing a lot of ports lately and I haven't seen anything missing, only things added.

It goes down to how well the developers know how to intuitively design around a controller and keep all functionality remaining. The "dumbing down" argument is naive cynicism, even when developers use it. It is the developers and publisher to blame if they make stupid games (Deus Ex 2, anyone?), not the console or controller. Usually all this keyboard "functionality" is merely weapon/item hotkeys, chat toggles (which voice chat wholly negates and improves upon), and the WSAD keys (which analog movement wholly negates and improves upon).

Simulators obviously need a lot of controls, however, and this is what the huge mech controller for Steel Batillion was for, as well as flight sticks and racing wheels for their respective games. A keyboard and mouse don't really cut it for this genre in the first place. PCs still have the better simulator games currently, but I'm hoping that will change in the coming generation.
 
dad11345 said:
All you have to do to see the writing on the wall is to go to Electronic Boutique and look at the PC game section size compared to the console. The space set aside for each product tells it all. Profit is the driving factor and in the last 5 years consoles have pushed the PC section into smaller and smaller areas in the store.
Click to expand...

I've noticed this as well. Pisses me of...the PC section used to be up front right when you walked into the store while the console games were stuck in the back and in corners. Now when you walk in, all you see is console games and I have to go to the back corner of the store to get my PC games.
 
Sometimes with the best things, there are fewer of them. Think of large diamonds for an example, or high end sports cars....
 
Kevin Lowe said:
World of Warcraft (likely coming to X360 - no reason why it couldn't)
Click to expand...

I call blasphemy. You're a sitting duck in pvp combat. Even with a mouse to quickly click on buttons, good use of hotkeys will give you an advantage.
 
I'm the Dude said:
Sometimes with the best things, there are fewer of them. Think of large diamonds for an example, or high end sports cars....
Click to expand...

Diamonds are a controlled substance. If it wasn't, diamonds would be next to worthless. And it's not the size of the diamond, it's the diamond and the cut itself.
 
i honestly think this thread has hit a dead end. Everyone is stating the same thing over and over. The fact of the amount of people replying is an indicator in itself that PC gaming will never die(until VR comes out anyway :cool: ). I'm not reading this thread anymore. I've seen 300 different versions of it already.
 
LOL posted a responce to say he is not reading it anymore now what. Too bad he will not see this. :p
 
I believe the new consoles will actually help PC gaming. If you think about it, most developers will write native code to take advantage of the multi-core, multi-threaded Xbox 360/PS3 from the outset, the technology, of which, will eventually filter to PC games. This is good news for the hard-core PC guys who actually have multi-CPUs, SLI 6800s and physics processors. Since not many PC users have dual CPUs it would be a hard sell to devote resources to such an effort for a game targeted solely for the PC. I don't believe PC gaming will ever die. That said, even with a decent gaming rig, most of the gaming I do now is on consoles.


Things about PC gaming I'm liking less and less:

1) Upgrading is expensive, technical and time-consuming (research, setup/installation), especially for the good components that will be needed to match or exceed this generation of consoles. I paid more for my current video card than what the entire Xbox 360 may cost $299.
2) It's tougher to play with a group of friends on the PC with a mouse and keyboard than with split-screen and gamepads on a comfy couch and a huge HDTV.
3) Traditional PC developers will be attracted to the static, next-gen hardware specs and massive potential audience.
4) With gaming at resoutions of 1920x1080 with 4X AA, one of the big graphical advantages of gaming on the PC is gone. From Anand:
"ATI did clarify that although Microsoft isn't targetting 1080p (1920 x 1080) as a resolution for games, their GPU would be able to handle the resolution with 4X AA enabled at no performance penalty.", http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2423&p=2
5) Even with top of the line stuff, only a handful of PC games will actually take full advantage of the hardware.
6) The general PC experience of buggy out-of-the-box software, multi-CD 30 minute installs, product keys, serials, updates, patches, service packs and Steam(yuk) can't beat the pop-in-and-play simplicity of consoles.

The next-gen consoles have my full attention as I prefer sports, driving, co-op FPS and fighting games. In the end, though, the platform is not so important as it's really a matter of games and a matter of personal taste.
 
The only point I'll reiterate is the point about the PC gaming market generally. However, not from the developers side, but from hardware manufactures. If you think about how much money companies make of PC gamers, selling components that function only for gaming, you would think they would go out of their way to prevent it. Many computer component manufacturers would go out of business if they did not have people to buy their "gaming" only parts.

Lets be honest, unless you are doing video encoding or specialized work, you don't need an SLI P4 EEE or FX55 with 2GB of DDR2 800mhz, etc to run a computer comfortably. However, I do hope if these people want to keep our business, they will price their components accordiongly. While I know the consoles will inevitably be suprased by PC parts, I hope the console price-point will have some effect on current pricing. I.e. I don't want to pay 500 dollars for a video card that is in a console for 300 dollars.
 
Sly said:
When comparing console FPS and PC FPS, which is better?
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement with what you said, hence the moot difference. They both do certain things well. But I hate PC RPGs (save KOTOR and System Shock) since the jump to 3D. Consoles remained traditional - try Star Ocean or Paper Mario 2. Can't wait until Phantasy Star I-III come out again. I'm starting to think about encouraging the disparity between the different systems. I guess I've been a pretty happy gamer all around - but no one can deny the time when the PC ruled the playing field - that was the best. Then again, the compititon was the Turbografix, the Genesis and the SNES.
I'm the Dude said:
Sometimes with the best things, there are fewer of them. Think of large diamonds for an example, or high end sports cars....
Click to expand...
How about rain during a drought? That's not very comforting.
Deam said:
Lets be honest, unless you are doing video encoding or specialized work, you don't need an SLI P4 EEE or FX55 with 2GB of DDR2 800mhz, etc to run a computer comfortably.
Click to expand...
LIES!
 
Heh, LIES indeed. But in reality it is true. Most computers are overpowered for what they do, unless the milliseconds difference opening Internet Explorer or typing in Word makes a difference. If you aren't doing highly CPU and graphic intensive tasks (i.e. games, and specialized applications :) ) then there is no need for any of the technology that is out now for the average consumer. Also, given that dev's don't even push the power before there is a jump to the next round of components, it is almost built in obsolence of non-obsolete products.

Factor in the extraordinarily overpriced nature of GPU's and CPU's, and all in all, PC gamers get hosed when it comes to price. And my point, I believe, is still an important one. What about all the MX518's, EVERY SLI motherboard around, the F8tality motherboards, and every other expensive PC part that is directed towards PC gamers.

I think for most hard core gamers, they don't mind paying the price, so long as the technology is indeed high-tech. If these consoles come out, and live up to their hype, there is a good chance that you will pay $500+ to get what's in a $300 console. That would suck, if it is the case. I don't mind if the PC remains the proving ground for the newest technology, at a premium. I just don't want the next HL's and Unreals and Dooms and Quakes, normally games that are hallmark tech games, to be released for consoles first and then ported to PC withotu any real benefit. That would be a sad day for PC gamiing.
 
Deam said:
I just don't want the next HL's and Unreals and Dooms and Quakes, normally games that are hallmark tech games, to be released for consoles first and then ported to PC withotu any real benefit. That would be a sad day for PC gamiing.
Click to expand...

I think that sad day is coming soon as the upcoming Xbox 360 game Gears of War is a prime example of a game being optimized for the Xbox 360 first, then eventually ported to the PC. There would be no point in waiting for a PC version since the console version would probably already be optimized to hell and running at HD resolutions. When the PC one is finally released, it would be old news and not even run as well on my single CPU A64 3000+ and 9800 XT anyways. This scenario will probably be replayed for many top tier (former PC) titles in the near future.

http://www.ferrago.com/story/5907
 
sfuller said:
I'm in agreement with what you said, hence the moot difference. They both do certain things well. But I hate PC RPGs (save KOTOR and System Shock) since the jump to 3D. Consoles remained traditional - try Star Ocean or Paper Mario 2. Can't wait until Phantasy Star I-III come out again. I'm starting to think about encouraging the disparity between the different systems. I guess I've been a pretty happy gamer all around - but no one can deny the time when the PC ruled the playing field - that was the best. Then again, the compititon was the Turbografix, the Genesis and the SNES.
Click to expand...

*shrugs* I was biased but i didn't exactly specify which is better, just the traditional differences :) (with a heavy dose of implying :p ) You can actually have a migrane juggling numbers to get the best characters possible in a PC RPG :D And some more eyecandy would be nice, we don't get enough cutscenes on PC RPG's as it is.

Anyway, i guess the main difference between the two platforms is usually that Consoles are simple and fun, while PC's are complex and satisfying.
 
rm19 said:
I think that sad day is coming soon as the upcoming Xbox 360 game Gears of War is a prime example of a game being optimized for the Xbox 360 first, then eventually ported to the PC.
Click to expand...

KOTOR II was a real shame in this manner. Deus Ex 2 also.

I think that I'm going to stop investing in PCs so much and go to console for gaming, save something spectacular like CIV 4 and SimCity 5. I don't see a real hardware pusher for a long time, you can see that from the E3. Of course I'll have a pimp rig, but I don't think I'm going for straight graphics anymore...I'll go for multitasking with a Athlon 64x2 and 2 gigs on my next machine, in a SFF case, with a middle of the road graphics option. Maybe quiet will be my next build. Hopefully I can use Tiger on it!

What do you think the next AAA title for PC will be? One that'll make smoke pour out the beast? Don't you think chilling on the PC upgrades is called for? I've staved off with what I have now for like two years, a new record in the thirteen years that I've been building them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top