PC Gaming is DYING...Long live the new Consoles!

[UNCjigga]

In response to Siva (long ago):

1. Yeah, I get a lot of requests to 'calm down' when I talk bout this. Duly noted.

2. Spelling is fixed. As for mods, when was the last time you owned a console with a hard drive? Bring on the XBox, bring on the mods!
(no not you Mean Mod, you suck!)

3.

<< New developers can get in on the new technology as well as the old and churn out games pretty fast with relatively low budgets. >>

And when was the last time you saw a great low-budget PC game? Serious Sam was a great shooter (damn I loved that game!) but how long did it take you to beat? What's the replay value like on it? When you run it, do you use it for benchmarking or do you use it for entertainment?

4. Proprietary doesn't always mean bad. Like I mentioned in my 'paper', the close relationship to the hardware often means developer and console vendor (do you like that term better?) can work together. Licensing fees are a way of gauranteeing that random crap isn't labelled as "PlayStation compatible" (they have to pay for that logo and in return they get compatibility testing done by the console vendor.) In addition, because the software is written for a specific platform and specific components, the software can run at the 'Ring 0' or hardware level--almost like straight assembly code. This means execution is faster; for example the PIII 733 in the Xbox will run games better than a PIII 733 burdened by some generic Award BIOS, ISA/PCI bus latencies, and a bloated OS (hehe, yea that's M$'s fault!)

5.


<< PC games don't sell worse than consoles, a good game launches to a much larger platform (more people own PCs and than consoles). >>

Okay assuming Doom 3 were to launch tomorrow, how many PC owners will be in an immediate position to play the game to its full potential? Now look at the Gran Turismo 3 launch--how many PlayStation2 owners are able to take full advantage of GT3?? As long as they bought a cheap $25 memory card, they all can. Is there a $25 upgrade that can take EVERY PC to full Doom 3 spec?? I rest my case. Just because there are more PCs doesn't mean anything--you need more GeForce3s, more 21" 1600x1200 monitors, and most of all...MORE PC SAVVY USERS! I challenge you to find sales statistics showing that GeForce3s are outselling PlayStation2s.

6.

<< Consoles use gamepads which are often inadequate to control games. Mouse and keyboard is still the best combonation IMO >>

Of course you are concentrating on FPS or RTS games. Sure mice are good for aiming and point-n-click menus, but haven't you ever played Duck Hunt? This classic from 198? still gets me psyked cuz I'm holding something that feels like a real gun! Now extend that concept, incorporate a gyroscope for movement and add extra buttons and you've got a great FPS controller! Yes, you'll be seeing these in the near future.

And the last and FINAL message:


<< consoles will keep putting games that look pretty similar for years after PC hardware has eclipsed them. >>


Old consoles, yes. New consoles, no. Consoles went through a paradigm shift recently. They've been steadily incorporating more PC-like features. Look at the CURRENT PlayStation2. We have an expansion bay, 2 USB ports and a Firewire port in addition to other proprietary technologies. Previously consoles would claim expansion capability and then the consolemaker would never exploit it (SNES, N64 etc.) Now they've realized how it can help them keep up with the next console on the horizon.

Consoles are essentially changing from their fixed-function use in the past. While they will never be true multi-function devices like PCs, they will be much better suited to our digital entertainment needs.

 

[UNCjigga]

<< What about Max Payne? The game took 4 years to make, and it utilizes all of the latest graphics and technology..... >>



And it just came out and its already bargain-priced at $15.99!!! Who's making money??? Which brings me to my next point which I totally left out of my discussion:

WAREZ!!! Does more harm to developers than good. The console industry learned valuable lessons from the first PlayStation and Sega's doomed-yet-exalted DreamCast. I still believe console games will be more copy-proof than PC games (though this remains to be seen...)

 

[Siva]

I'm not saying consoles suck, they still have a few advantages over PCs, but all my points show that PCs aren't fading. And dont' you think people burn PS and DC games as much as they do PC games, I know I do

 

[damocles]

People have been telling me that PC gaming is dying since the late 1980s.

Eventually I can see it happening but it wont be for a long time

 

[Sugadaddy]

<< dyeing = to color
dying = to pass from physical life
idiotic = this thread >>



hehe, sorry. English is my 2nd language, so at least I have an excuse...

I knew about the "e" in dyeing, I'm just too tired. But I'm sure dieing exists.

 

[yoda291]

OK, Me thinks these threads come up for no reason other than to stir up trouble.

Here's my thoughts on the matter. Games are not judged necessarily by how pretty they look or this and that new featureset. They're judged by the fun you have playing them. I remember playing Goldeneye on an N64 a whiles back and it was fun, not because the graphics were particularly spectacular, but because of the bitching and moaning from my friends as I shot them with a golden pea shooter, or the Bond sountrack running through my head during a game of chess the next day, or calling my friends bastards after a proximity mine kills all 4 of us in a suicidal measure. It had nothing to do with the shiny characters or the booming digital surround sound. I look on all the games I have, and the ones I still play are a mix of the old and the new. I still play way too much starcraft. I play Warcraft 2 a lot. Both Diablos are there. CounterStrike is a time killer. C&C Red Alert sits in my CDROM drive as I type this(Not RA2, it's too cartoony for me). Meanwhile, I have a copy of Black&White lounging in my CD binder. Q3a sits in a spindle somewhere. Project IGI and Hitman 47 have been retired into my dust collectors pile. Those games just weren't playable enough for me. So while I'm sure the Xbox is a nice thing and I might pick one up in a few years just to see where all the hype was about. As for playing on your 40' HDTV Dolbby digital surround sound deal, I'm perfectly happy with my kickass headphones and my 19' monitor. I'm sorry, but no matter how good a console is, or even a new PC is, I don't think you can recreate the first time me and like 20 of my closest high school buddies got together and played computers games for 14 hours straight simultaneously inside a rented American Legion Hall. It was just so much fun. You could curse off your friends after he zergling rushes you, or snipes you with an aug while you run out of ammo in your mp5. Games are supposed to be fun, not look pretty. You wanna see pretty? Go to a museum. I'm sure there'll be good games for you to play...and I'm sure the fill rates will be adequate for you, but it's just not ma thing. On top of that, Computer gaming gives you the feeling that you COULD be productive if you wanted to. Console gaming makes me feel like I've wasted my life away. By judging games by their "shininess" you pretty much imply the greatest game would be a picture of a 3d apple that renders lightning fast over and over and over. Games are fun not because of the platform, but because of the GAME!!! Final Fantasy is a good example of this.

BTW, broadband and consoles? BAD IDEA. Currently, multiplayer games run great at 56k speeds so long as they are stable and latency isn't that bad. As far as I'm concerned, they goofed. They shoulda been upping a network card option, not a dsl modem. It just goes to show, it's more fun fragging your friends and family than it is killing strangers.

Finally, if you're getting excited because those sprites you're killing look more realistic and you can do it with full anatomical accuracy rendered in full, colorful 3d, I'd suggest you seek help. Lots and lots of help.

 

[UNCjigga]

<< BTW, I think someone in the other thread said the XBOX was gonna have progressive DVD playback (which I doubt...), anybody have a link proving this? >>


*sigh*
The NV2A already natively supports resolutions as high as 1920x1440--duh its an nVidia GPU!!! In addition, most next-gen GPUs now have HDTV capability (its been in the Radeon for awhile now) and that gives you support for 60fps non-interlaced progressive scan. That allows Microsoft to utilize 720p and 1080i which I believe are the current top-end resolutions for HDTV. Now the XBox will only ship with your standard Red-White-Yellow multi-AV cable (with Svideo jack as well.) HDTV and hence progressive-scan DVD playback will require a separate High Definition A/V adapter (prolly $30 at the most) with component video outputs. Microsoft may even go further by releasing a DVI-I/VGA A/V adapter for all the PC fans who absolutely MUST play on a their current high-res monitor (this is also for the skeptics who think FSAA on the Xbox is really just the blurred resolution of your TV!)

 

[lepper boy]

my response to this thread??
ummmmmmmm........... Shut up.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

show me a console game that has sold more units than diablo/diablo 2/starcraft, etc.

 

[UNCjigga]

yoda291, I'm glad you're on my side (though you might think you're not!) Games should be playable, and I think console games are generally more playable than PC games for a variety of reasons. PCs are still stuck in the single-player per screen world.

I don't care about shinyness or newness. I only care about mass appeal...and I think the average consumer prefers electronic gaming on a console vs. the PC. Just think about all those single-PC households. Can Bobby play his game if daddy needs to use Excel???

So many people have said they prefer their PCs and that console costs are prohibitive. HELLO!!!! How much money do you spend upgrading your computer on average??? $120 mobo here, $120 processor here, $40 more ram here, $200 hard drive there, and a $200 video card to top it off--EVERY 12 MONTHS??? Lets say a new console debuts every 3 years at a cost of $350 with the necessary accessories, while the average console game is $50 (actually now its cheaper.) Lets say you buy one game every 2 months. That's 6 games a year, or 18 games over the lifespan of the console. That costs $1250 over 3 years, or about the cost of a decent new PC. While your PC is obsolete in 6-12 months, the console has lasted 3 years MINIMUM. Plus, your money isn't all spent in hardware...but its in SOFTWARE--the actual entertainment! I'm also assuming the new console you upgrade to is incompatible--but if it is compatible then your vast software investment isn't totally wasted (plus you can always keep your old console hooked up, while you need an expensive KVM switch and more room to do the same for a PC!)



<< They shoulda been upping a network card option, not a dsl modem. >>



I take it you haven't seen the back of the XBox yet. One RJ-45 connection for 10/100 ethernet, present. They aren't gonna waste money and put a whole friggin' DSL modem in there! Just hook it up to the router yourself! If you don't have broadband, buy a few and use the hub (multiple Xboxes plus 27" TV = $600 which is still cheaper than multiple game-worthy PCs with monitors!) I doubt MS would do this, but it would be cool if you could rip games to the XBox hard drive temporarily so you only need one copy to play over a private LAN.

 

[UNCjigga]

<< show me a console game that has sold more units than diablo/diablo 2/starcraft, etc. >>



You must be joking right? I'm too tired right now so I'm gonna take the easy way out...

SUPER MARIO BROS. has prolly sold more than Diablo, Diablo2 and StarCraft COMBINED (link may be provided tomorrow if I can actually find the evidence!) If not, then Super Mario 1, 2 and 3 combined have done far better than those 3 Blizzard games.

 

[TruculentTucan]

so basically you are saying that me, the average gamer, will dish out 300 for a system, 100 for a HDD, 40 for a NIC, 20 for a keyboard, 20 for a mouse, 300-500 for an LCD, just so i can have a computer? How come i don't think so... second of all the consoles have some big advantages right now, but by 2003 computers will far outperform PS2 and most likely not be far behind PS3.

 

[Raspewtin]

i agree pc gaming doesn't look good right now, but 2 years from now, it will be a different story I think. It's pretty amazing that PC gaming is doing this well with the launch of 2 consoles IMO. PC Gaming will never die, it just goes in cycles.

 

[UNCjigga]

<< so basically you are saying that me, the average gamer, will dish out 300 for a system, 100 for a HDD, 40 for a NIC, 20 for a keyboard, 20 for a mouse, 300-500 for an LCD, just so i can have a computer? How come i don't think so... second of all the consoles have some big advantages right now, but by 2003 computers will far outperform PS2 and most likely not be far behind PS3. >>



1. $300 for a system is believable since people still spend more on a single component (GeForce3)

2. Hard drive is included in XBox, Sony will have to drop the price of their own HD/Modem unit (but they're used to losing money on hardware, that's how the biz works.)

3. NIC included in XBox--again Sony loses on the a la carte pricing--sucks for them (or mebbe they'll be able to do USB->ethernet or Firewire->ethernet for cheaper?)

4. Mouse & keyboard are optional. Gamers by definition play more than just shooters/strategy games...oh wait you play on a PC so you haven't played anything else?

5. LCD screen? MOST gamers would rather have the luxury on playing on a 32" or larger TV compared to bragging about getting 100fps at 1600x1200 in Quake3.

6. I think the PC gaming industry will pick up once Windows XP technology has been entrenched for 5 or more years. However, by that time fresh consoles will be launching. Remember that console tech has historically led PC tech...Voodoo1 came out when Sony PS was a couple years old, N64 had better gfx and gamespeed than nearly all PCs sold at its debut, and Dreamcast launched with PowerVR technology that was inferior yet most DC games still look better and run smoother than PC games.

 

[hans007]

yeah i really think he's right. i mean i cant even think of one good game on the PC, except diablo 2 was the last remotely good one i played (lasted a month for me). I am playing fzero on GBA now. Yes i can play that game. It is fun. And GBA was probably obsolete 5 years ago. The games are what matter, not the stupid graphics and 50000000 polygon graphics.


Back in the old days (late 80s), every game was good, since they couldn't depend on stupid graphics. Like the old sierra quest games. Awesome games. Now people waste too much development time on graphics. ANother great game on PC, fallout 2. Graphics were way crappy for its time, when 3d was all the rage, but that game owned. now they come out with crappy fallout tactics , and its 3d graphics and that game sucked since it has no story

 

[UNCjigga]

Good point Hans. The original C&C had crap graphics compared to WC2, but it had just as many fans.

 

[JellyBaby]

You're forgetting the sh!tty economy that appears to be getting worse every month. The X-Box is gonna be a though sell when nobody's buying anything "tech" right now.

The X-Box is another piece of hardware to buy and take up space. You may or may not want to hook it up to your lo-res TV with cruddy built-in sound.

PC game developers for many reasons are cozing to the X-Box. To be blunt, good luck over there. Most of them have been tossing out derivitive crap for far too long. The talented developers who make great games that also sell will still produce stuff for the PC. There will always be money to be made making PC games.

 

[WhiteWonder]

eh, now that i think of it, consoles are just turning into computers, heck, soon they will merge or something, then both forms of gaming will die