# The death of PC games is nigh! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2005, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016 "2005-04-06T09:08:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/181 "2005-04-18T03:44:31Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > as for the 1080i format, that’s really a 540p resolution (it’s two laced 540p frames, that’s why i=interlaced, p=progressive). so 720p is still the best you get on HDTV. I’m sorry, but this just not the case. 1080i is 1920x1080 resolution, period. The detail on all the ‘odd’ lines is offset by 1/59.94th in _time_, but there is spatial information there that is discrete from the ‘even’ lines. Claiming that the interlace of 1080i somehow halves the resolution is silly. [Here](http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html) is a list of the ATSC formats. 1080p and i are both listed as 1920x1080. [Here](http://www.atsc.org/document_map/interfaces.htm#1920%20x%201080) is what the ATSC says: > [@](#): > > SMPTE 274M: 1920 x 1080 Scanning and Interface > This standard defines a family of raster-scanning systems for the representation of stationary or moving two-dimensional images sampled temporally at a constant frame rate and having an image format of 1920 x 1080 and an aspect ratio of 16:9. There is some small amount of cheating – for example, prosumer HDV cameras like [this one](http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.com/video/20050209/) encode video to MPEG at 1440x1080 @ 1.333 pixel aspect 1080 resolution. But actual 1080i broadcasts are at 1.0 pixel aspect, so you’re really getting all of those pixels if you have a monitor that can display it. I’m not a broadcast engineer, and perhaps one will come along in a moment who can clarify this even further. But I work with HD video on a daily basis, and your claim that 720p is better resolution than 1080i is just not correct. > [@](#): > > (As for Best Buy, I suggest you go directly to the manufacturers sites and look for “native resolution”, not “horizontal resolution”. They may differ.) I wasn’t looking at the horizontal resolution, I was looking at the “native resolution”. I don’t dispute that some sets are \< 1280x720, but you said “most”, which I didn’t find to be the case. I’d also previously looked at manufacturer sites before buying a 1080i 1920x1200 LCD monitor for my video work, so I’ve had some past familiarity with this issue. I’ll admit I’d restricted my sampling to LCD flat panels, so if you want to trot out a bunch of rear projection displays that have poor resolution, maybe you’ll make a case. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/182 "2005-04-18T04:08:08Z")
Almost forgot: to the best of my knowledge, there’s no such thing as “540p”. If you want to make the case that one 1080i field @ 1920x540 is “540p”, I suppose you’re entitled, but I don’t know of any standards body that has defined such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/183 "2005-04-18T19:55:48Z")
The whole interpolation thing is just not a very intuitive concept. In terms of the amounts of raw image data that is streamed to the screen, the amount needed for 1080i is 12.5% higher than that needed for for 720p. That doesn’t mean that the image looks 12.5% better though. Most people think it looks a whole lot better than that while a few with discerning eyes say they prefer the stability of 720p. ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/184 "2005-04-18T20:42:37Z")
I’d just like to note that my projector always notes that it is playing in “540p”. It always sort of confused me why it listed as such… ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/185 "2005-04-19T11:57:32Z")
> [@Gozu](#): > > The psx didn’t excel at anything at the time. It was just launched. Multi-platform games are a minority and while I can definitely the logic behind picking them, it is superficial. Multiplatform games very rarely take full advantage of their platforms for various reasons which i’ll get into if you ask me to. Hopefully, you already know why. Our goal here is to compare what looks best visually on both platforms. So go ahead and do an actual comparison. Just demonstrate that you are actually doing someting other than asserting without support. Again I ask you for more details on exactly how a console game (the cream of the crop) is supposed to look better at half the resolution and half the refresh rate or worse than you will find on a PC (also playing the cream of the crop). > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t be so assertive in a debate which topic I lack expertise in. Ah, the old fallacy of authority. We know nothing about your expertise, and are rather more interested in arguments and evidence. > [@](#): > > It seems you’re forgetting that we’re not judging gameplay or genres. Just graphics. I much prefer japanese RPGs myself. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. No, you’re the one focusing on graphics – as I recall I hit a number of different criteria in my past messages. > [@](#): > > Again, you are correct. My argument is that PCs are going to lose most of their strenghts as time goes by. Indeed, and my argument has consistently been that I see no indication of that just yet. This is not the same as saying that there is not an impressively booming game console market, which there obviously is. > [@](#): > > I’ve been reading that sentence over and over and I can’t really make much sense of it. It’s simple: provide support for your assertions. Cites. Back9ing for assertions. Facts. > [@](#): > > That’s what you say. I say different. I believe my methodology is quite valid. You pick good games and compare the price they sell for at launch. You don’t have any methodology to speak of, not to mention any results to go with that lack of methodology! You have done no comparison. You have simply (again) asserted that this is so and that is that. Prove it or stop repeating it. You’ll note I actually did the work and sifted through Gamespot to collect a sample, while you have still avoided any semblance of investing some effort to validate your assertions. > [@](#): > > There was no reason to only pick out multiplatform games. In any case, i’ve lost interest in convincing you. Let’s wait until someone who works at some game store comes here and offers us his opinion based on his empirical experience. The reason to pick out multiplatform games was (very clearly, as I stated) to provide a common frame of reference in the comparison exercise. For example, graphic quality is highly dependent on what is actually happening on the screen – it’s easy for Silent Hill to have amazingly good graphics because most of the game is static. It’s a lot harder to do that in a game like Half-life, which is in constant motion, always being redrawn and sometimes at a rapid pace. Do you finally see my point? Also, different publishing houses have different approaches to pricing - just look at the low price for the _Chronicles of Riddick_ game, for example). You need a frame of reference, period. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry if I misled you. Yes, absolutely, console games are where the money is atfor both publishers AND system makers. Consoles are usually sold at cost or near it. With the exception of the Xbox which is definitely sold at a tangible loss. I don’t know which consoles were sold at a loss and for how long but it really doesn’t matter because I agree with you. I don’t know how many more times I have to point out that this is entirely wrong. Consoles are money-losers. Look: > [@](#): > > [BusinessWeek Feb 28, 2005](http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_09/b3922094.htm) > > The real payoff for Sony comes in game software sales. **While Sony and the other console makers sell their hardware for a loss, they typically make $5 to $10 in royalties for every game sold on their platform.** PS2 has had more than 2,000 software titles, with more than 775 million total game copies sold. Sony courts independent game makers such as EA to make games exclusive to its console. And it develops its own games – exclusive software to keep fans loyal to the hardware. Sony’s game business has for years propped up its consumer-electronics division, which accounts for two-thirds of the company’s profits. > [@](#): > > [Game Investor: Console Strategies for 2001-2005 cycle](http://www.gamesinvestor.com/Thinkpieces/Console_Strategies/console_strategies.html) > > Hardware pricing is now a function of how much financial pain a console manufacturer can bear. All consoles are sold as loss-leaders with manufacturers losing up to $130 per unit sold in order to establish an installed base large enough to support a high volume of software sales (from which manufacturers receive their return on investment). The key is how quickly they can redesign their consoles to reduce manufacturing costs and thus permit retail-level price cuts. The one possible exception (among consoles that actually succeeded) to this rule is Nintendo, and only to a limited extent. Look again: > [@](#): > > [Planet GamCube Editorial: Game Business 101](http://www.planetgamecube.com/editorials.cfm?action=profile&id=120) > > those who follow the games business from the sidelines have always been told that the way you make money as a hardware manufacturer in the games industry is to sell the hardware at a loss, and make up the difference in licensing fees. Even Nintendo has acknowledged it, but if you look to the past, you’ll see that Nintendo has rarely followed that philosophy. GameCube was the first console that Nintendo lost money on at launch, and even then, only in the single digits, and that loss was erased in six months. This is in stark contrast to both Microsoft and Sony, who lost nearly $100 per console at launch, and analysts claim Microsoft is still losing that today in order to remain competitive. Spare me any more unsupported, unfounded, unwarranted denial. Consoles are sold at cost only towards the end of a cycle, when redesign process has dropped sufficiently in cost to reduce the losses on hardware sales (but then, consoles drop in price throughout their shelf life, so I suspect they always and consistently lose money, even toward the end of a cycle). > [@Gozu](#): > > Once again, that is what you claim. It is annoying. I’ve spent a lot of time detailing my reasoning and providing examples. If they do not satisfy you, that’s fine. I’m not a prophet, I could be wrong. I simply believe I am right. Time will tell. You may also take into account that a real live pc/console developper agreed with most of what I said. You’ve given your opinion, and it’s not been especially well supported because you’ve come out with some rather surprising statements tha require a modicum of hard evidence or at least speculation and extrapolation of adequate quality. You don’t seem to understand that you can’t gainsay what someone else says merely on the strength of your opinion. This is GD: pull out some cites or modify your arguments if you can’t make any further progress. > [@](#): > > Don’t mix past, present and future when you’re speaking about my predictions. They all take place after next-gen consoles have been launched. My conclusion is based on the premises I have laid down for why consoles are going to take over. development costs, increases in resolutions, yadda yadda yadda. You can always go back and read my earlier posts as well as pochacco’s for that. As if I haven’t already. I repeat, you are voicing an opinion without particularly good support. You are speculating on the future of gaming in a supposedly informed manner, and yet your primary conclusion has been merely that the end of PC gaming is nigh. A ridiculous conclusion for all the reasons already stated. You could at the most argue for a downturn in PC gaming that would in all probability be cyclical in nature. But until consoles replace PCs, until HDTVs come with built-in consoles, or something like that, your argument is specious. > [@](#): > > It was a rhetorical question. It is indeed coming on the Xbox 2. I just wanted to debunk you weak assertion that “real” rpgs somehow belonged to the PC for whatever reason. Oh yes, and one game title on a console that is as yet unavailable really constitutes a “debunking”… sure thing! > [@](#): > > Are you honestly saying that open RPGs can’t be handled by consoles somehow? Of course they can. Heck, consoles have been handling MMORPGs for christ’s sake. Doesn’t get much bigger and complex than that. Again, the exception rather than the rule. As I said before, PC RPGs are “deeper” (actually, those were someone else’s words). Console RPGs are role-playing “light”. XBox has tackled this problem by going after PC-style RPGs, and has had a measure of success with a few titles. Again, exception rather than the rule. > [@](#): > > God deliver us from fanboys. Some people are still gaming on MACs too. I say: more power to you! (Now, all the macfanatics will be after my blood 🙂 . I am not by any definition a PC fanboy (which is a particularly weak way to address an argument, you’re obviously a console fanboy but you don’t see me bringing that up). > [@](#): > > You may dismiss whatever you want. When you’re done dismissing, go play on xbox live! and see if you start changing your mind. The only advantage of PCs when it comes to multiplayer are the community-run dedicated servers. It’ll be interesting to see what happens on that front when console games start trying to get 24-64 people playing at the same time. Right now, i think any console game that supports more than 16 simultaneous players must connect to dedicated servers run by the company publishing the game. Look! You made a glimmer of a sound point by laying down some arguments after being prompted and prodded! Aside from LAN parties and such small potatoes multiplayer, I would say the community dedicated servers right now are a significant attraction, and one that is generally lacking from the console world. > [@](#): > > As far as the whole 64 bit thing goes, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m sorry if it sounds harsh but it’s the truth. This coming from someone whose idea of a discussion is automatic and unsupported denial? I’ve been exposed to harsher treatment than yet another unsupported statement. > [@](#): > > You ought to have mentionned the upcoming physX card for the pc. It really looks interesting. My rebuttal for that would’ve been that by the time it comes out (a year or so) and actually starts influencing pc gaming (another 3-4 years at least), a new generation of consoles would’ve come out and they’d just go and include that in their architecture. This has precious little to do with my oft-repeated point that 1) 64 bit computing has brought (and will bring further) performance/quality increases **with the important caveat that it requires corresponding 64 bit software** , 2) that is yet in its infancy and must be adopted further, 3) that it confers advantages to games that make strong use of AI, etc. I’d find you a cite on the last one, as I distinctly recall reading as much in a variety of sources, but I’ve run out of time. ---
**Author:** ![Cerri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3bc359/32.png) [@Cerri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerri)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/186 "2005-04-22T17:59:23Z")
I must admit all this talk about the actual technology comparisons are rather lost on me, so I’m not going to overly address them. You guys have gotten caught up in the hardware argument, and I’d like to see some of you address other points to the debate. As I said earlier, I am primarily a PC gamer. We have a PS2, but it’s mainly for the kids, because the consoles don’t really offer games in genres my fiance and I prefer (RTS and MMORPG), and where they do, the console falls short in the genre. (I’ve tried the EverQuest Online Adventures game for the PS2 by the way, and although it was an ok game, it definitely fell _way_ short of any PC MMO in pretty much every way, even with a keyboard, which is essential for a MMO.) Now, I also stated that we have multiple gamers in the house. Multiple PCs for the household are sensible as well as feasible, because PCs have so many uses. The kids need one to do their schoolwork, my husband needs one to do his work, and I need one because…well, because I love my PC, and I ain’t sharing it with anyone. 😉 Now, consoles may very well look as good as PC games with the addition of an HDTV to hook it to, but how many homes currently own one HDTV, let alone several? On the other hand, multiple-PC households have been a growing trend the last 5 years, and the average home according to IDC now has 1.5 PCs. [http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/innovators/home\_networking/tech\_overview.html](http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/innovators/home_networking/tech_overview.html) > [@](#): > > Another factor driving demand for home networking is the growth of multiple-PC homes. By the end of 1999, 52 percent of U.S. households had at least one PC according to International Data Corporation. By 2004, IDC expects this figure to reach 62.4 percent. A large part of this growth will be the increase in multiple PC households. One in every four of U.S. households (25.3 percent) at the close of 1999 has multiple PCs. By 2004, it is predicted that this figure will be 43.3 percent of all U.S. households. [http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=pr2005\_02\_10\_155244](http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=pr2005_02_10_155244) > [@](#): > > FRAMINGHAM, Mass., February 16, 2005 – Document output volume on printers and multifunction peripherals is alive and well in U.S. PC-owning households, according to two new IDC studies. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. households own PCs and these households have lots of computing power. In fact, the average number of PCs per PC-owning household is 1.5 and many of them have multiple hardcopy peripherals present in the home. The result is that U.S. households output billions of pages, creating significant opportunity for hardcopy vendors. Take World of Warcraft for instance. We have 3 players in the house, , and we frequently play at the same time. If we wanted to play a console MMO (of which there’s currently only one of each (and it’s not a HDTV), and it’s not doing well compared to PC MMOs, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a comparable MMO for the console here), we’d need 3 TVs and 3 consoles, of which we currently own one, whereas we already own 3 computers and plan on adding a fourth in the next year, because of the PC’s diversity. That’s not going to happen, and we’re definitely not going to buy 3 HDTVs to do what our PCs already do now. Another factor to look at is demographics. Who is playing these games we’re talking about? The average age of gamers across the board (PC _and_ console) is rising, with a median age of 23 (cite to follow after I raise the other half of this point). The other part of that is a growing market demographic that gaming (both PC and console) has traditionally overlooked, the adult female. > [@](#): > > This shift is defined along three axes: **the average console user is already an adult, the number of high-intensity users is set to grow 40% by 2007, and low-intensity puzzle and board games dominate the favorite genre**. > “An older more usage-intense audience is a powerful change for game companies who struggle to adapt hardware and games for profitability in a highly competitive market. As the audience ages, the content will need to mature as well,” said Michael Gartenberg, Research Director for Jupiter Research. > > The research is covered in two reports recently made available in conjunction with the launch of Jupiter Research’s new Personal Computer & Console Games Service. These reports detail the major changes in the demographic composition of the games audience through 2007. “Much is made of the maturing games audience, but the reality is that we are there today - **the median age is 23 years old** ,” said Gartenberg. (bolding mine) [http://www.theesa.com/archives/2003/05/games\_are\_posit.php](http://www.theesa.com/archives/2003/05/games_are_posit.php) > [@](#): > > -Buyer Demographics: Ninety-two percent of those who purchase console games are over the age of 18, and 98 percent of computer game buyers are over 18. Forty-seven percent of console game buyers and 57 percent of computer game buyers are women. > -Computer Player Demographics: Fifty-eight percent of computer game players are male, while 42 percent are female. Thirty percent are under 18 years old, 29 percent are 18 to 35, and 41 percent are over 36. > -Console Player Demographics: Seventy-two percent of console game players are male and 28 percent are female. Thirty-eight percent are under 18, 40 percent are 18 to 35, and 22 percent are over 36. > -Types of Games Played Most Often: Console game players say that they most often play: action games (51 percent); driving/racing games (50 percent); sports games (47 percent); and role-play/adventure games (35 percent). Computer game players say they are most likely to play: puzzle/board/card games (36 percent); action games (36 percent); driving/racing games (34 percent); and sports (32 percent). > -Number of Games Owned: Console game players report that they own an average of 16 games, while computer gamers report that they own about 12 titles. > -Online Games: Thirty-seven percent of game players say they play games online, up from 31 percent last year and 18 percent in 1999. > -Type of Game Played Most Often Online: puzzle, board, game show, trivia or card game (56 percent); action, sports, strategy or role-play game (20 percent); persistent multi-player universe (7 percent); or none of the above (7 percent). > -Mobile Gaming: More than one-third (39 percent) of Americans who own consoles or computers report that they also play games on mobile devices like handheld systems, PDAs, and cell phones. Eighteen percent play games on cell phones, up from 14 percent a year ago. [http://www.dfcint.com/game\_article/june04article.html](http://www.dfcint.com/game_article/june04article.html) > [@](#): > > It has become clear that broadband connections are driving online game usage around the world. What is perhaps even more exciting is the type of consumers that are using online games. The online game business is notable not only for its geographic diversity, but also its demographic diversity. Of course, adult males playing massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) like EverQuest have received the most attention. However, it is the numbers for the casual games that are arguably more impressive. Services like Yahoo Games, MSN Zone and Pogo attract tens of millions of users and at any given time will have 150,000 to 200,000 simultaneous players each. On top of that, for many services over 50% of their users are adult females, a demographic that has historically shunned video games. > > Of course, children have been the traditional heart of the console video game industry. With its basis in cutting-edge PC technology, the online game business has started with an older audience. The good news is that online games are attracting kids as they go mass market. Content for children includes subscription-based products like Disney’s Toontown, as well as advertising/sponsor supported services like Neopets. In fact, Neopets, with over 20 million users, is one of the first examples of online originated content that is spreading to other media in a big way. With licensed toys, games and McDonalds Happy Meals, Neopets has the potential to be the next Pokemon. > > The traditional video game audience is also slowly starting to get on board the online game bandwagon. A service like Xbox Live may currently be used by less than 10% of Xbox owners, but it is clearly a sign of the future. Xbox Live is the leading example of where console systems are going with online games. > > -snip- > > The main drivers of growth for the online game business are 1) increased consumer usage and 2) more average per consumer revenue from what we define as casual and moderate gamers. Casual and moderate gamers are expected to go from 65% of usage in 2003 to 73% of online game usage by 2009. About 62% of online game revenue in 2009 is forecasted to come from casual and moderate gamers. By 2009, console online games are forecasted to account for only 17% of usage, but 30% of online game revenue. So there you have the demographic of both adult females, as well as online gaming to add into the debate, both of which I think will be powerful factors in the PC vs. console debate, especially when you factor in multiple PC households. Like I said, while alot of people want and are willing to purchase multiple PCs, I don’t see multiple HDTV household owners becoming a large factor for quite a long while, so the “which looks better” argument becomes kind of moot for multiple-gamer households if you’re going to argue you need a HDTV to rival PC-quality graphics. Why would people want to argue over who gets to use the HDTV/Console tonight, when everyone can be satisfied playing their preferred game on their own PC? I also think you’re going to have a harder time convincing adult women to play console games more often than they play PC games (especially when they likely share a household with other gamers), but that’s just my personal anecdotal opinion/observation, and shouldn’t really be taken into account for the sake of this debate as such. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/187 "2005-04-22T19:52:40Z")
COMPLEXITY is the key why PC’s games will one day rule. Look [here](http://www.gamespy.com/articles/606/606686p1.html) for a brief description of what looks to be an exciting new game!! Just a brief tast: > [@](#): > > Fargo: Here’s the way it works: the real-time strategy genre is consistently a big seller, and game developers are always looking for ways to distinguish themselves. Look at Empire Earth II or Age of Empires III. These games are competing in a very mature market. They’ve got to add new features to the genre, but they can’t get rid of older features because fans will think something’s missing. Follow? > > Delsyn: Sure. > > Fargo: But after puzzling my way through a gold master of Empire Earth II, the solution hit me: COMPLEXITY. It’s virtually untapped. AoE III may have the graphics and Empire Earth II may have the depth, but Complexity is the KEY. > > Delsyn: What about gameplay? > > Fargo: SILENCE! If gameplay sold more people would be buying Rise of Nations. Behold my latest masterpiece: It’s a little game I call Rise of Complexity IV: Dawn of the Modern Empires. I can’t wait till it ships! 😉 Enjoy -XT ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/188 "2005-04-22T22:57:50Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > So go ahead and do an actual comparison. Just demonstrate that you are actually doing someting other than asserting without support. what I previously said. > [@](#): > > Again I ask you for more details on exactly how a console game (the cream of the crop) is supposed to look better at half the resolution and half the refresh rate or worse than you will find on a PC (also playing the cream of the crop). what I previously said. > [@](#): > > Ah, the old fallacy of authority. We know nothing about your expertise, and are rather more interested in arguments and evidence. _shrug_ > [@](#): > > No, you’re the one focusing on graphics – as I recall I hit a number of different criteria in my past messages. already explained why we were focusing on graphics earlier. It’s really obvious, I think you just got caught up trying to argue against every single thing I say. > [@](#): > > It’s simple: provide support for your assertions. Cites. Back9ing for assertions. Facts. Nah, no cites. Too much work. > [@](#): > > You don’t have any methodology to speak of, not to mention any results to go with that lack of methodology! You have done no comparison. You have simply (again) asserted that this is so and that is that. Prove it or stop repeating it. You’ll note I actually did the work and sifted through Gamespot to collect a sample, while you have still avoided any semblance of investing some effort to validate your assertions. already addressed. > [@](#): > > The reason to pick out multiplatform games was (very clearly, as I stated) to provide a common frame of reference in the comparison exercise. For example, graphic quality is highly dependent on what is actually happening on the screen – it’s easy for Silent Hill to have amazingly good graphics because most of the game is static. It’s a lot harder to do that in a game like Half-life, which is in constant motion, always being redrawn and sometimes at a rapid pace. Do you finally see my point? Also, different publishing houses have different approaches to pricing - just look at the low price for the _Chronicles of Riddick_ game, for example). > > You need a frame of reference, period. Already addressed. Silent hill looked like crap by the way. Anyhow, i asked a retail guy what his experience with pricing for pc and console games was and he said: “New games usually come out at the same price. Afterwards, pc games tend to drop more in price. On average, I’d say pc games are $5 to $10 cheaper.” This is consistent with both our findings so I’m assuming we can put this issue to rest. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how many more times I have to point out that this is entirely wrong. Consoles are money-losers. Look: > The one possible exception (among consoles that actually succeeded) to this rule is Nintendo, and only to a limited extent. Look again: Some consoles sell at a loss, some at cost. As I said, doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > Spare me any more unsupported, unfounded, unwarranted denial. Consoles are sold at cost only towards the end of a cycle, when redesign process has dropped sufficiently in cost to reduce the losses on hardware sales (but then, consoles drop in price throughout their shelf life, so I suspect they always and consistently lose money, even toward the end of a cycle). It’s possible, doesn’t matter either way. > [@](#): > > You’ve given your opinion, and it’s not been especially well supported because you’ve come out with some rather surprising statements tha require a modicum of hard evidence or at least speculation and extrapolation of adequate quality. You don’t seem to understand that you can’t gainsay what someone else says merely on the strength of your opinion. This is GD: pull out some cites or modify your arguments if you can’t make any further progress. Nah, no cites. Too much work. > [@](#): > > As if I haven’t already. I repeat, you are voicing an opinion without particularly good support. You are speculating on the future of gaming in a supposedly informed manner, and yet your primary conclusion has been merely that the end of PC gaming is nigh. A ridiculous conclusion for all the reasons already stated. > > You could at the most argue for a downturn in PC gaming that would in all probability be cyclical in nature. But until consoles replace PCs, until HDTVs come with built-in consoles, or something like that, your argument is specious. Time will tell. Our arguments have become cyclical, that’s for sure. > [@](#): > > Oh yes, and one game title on a console that is as yet unavailable really constitutes a “debunking”… sure thing! > Again, the exception rather than the rule. As I said before, PC RPGs are “deeper” (actually, those were someone else’s words). Console RPGs are role-playing “light”. XBox has tackled this problem by going after PC-style RPGs, and has had a measure of success with a few titles. Again, exception rather than the rule. Question: can consoles handle nonlinear rpgs? Answer: absolutely. Q.E.D > [@](#): > > I am not by any definition a PC fanboy (which is a particularly weak way to address an argument, you’re obviously a console fanboy but you don’t see me bringing that up). I wasn’t referring to you. > [@](#): > > This coming from someone whose idea of a discussion is automatic and unsupported denial? I’ve been exposed to harsher treatment than yet another unsupported statement.This has precious little to do with my oft-repeated point that 1) 64 bit computing has brought (and will bring further) performance/quality increases **with the important caveat that it requires corresponding 64 bit software** , 2) that is yet in its infancy and must be adopted further, 3) that it confers advantages to games that make strong use of AI, etc. You shifted from consoles vs pc to 32 vs 64 bits. You must first establish that upcoming consoles have “less bits than pcs”. Turns out it’s not true. > [@](#): > > I’d find you a cite on the last one, as I distinctly recall reading as much in a variety of sources, but I’ve run out of time. Yes, finding cites is a long and tedious work. ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/189 "2005-04-22T23:02:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > COMPLEXITY is the key why PC’s games will one day rule. Look [here](http://www.gamespy.com/articles/606/606686p1.html) for a brief description of what looks to be an exciting new game!! > > I can’t wait till it ships! 😉 Enjoy > > -XT Heh. Thanks for the link, funny article. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/190 "2005-04-23T09:02:34Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > **RaftPeople** , since you’ve cited the performance of the CPUs coming to the consoles, out of curiosity, what is the retail price on these babies? It strikes me that if three Power5’s, more powerful than any Pentium on the market **in your view** , are available in a console for $299 (or whatever), I can get the most powerful CPU on the market for less than $100 a piece. Can you tell me if this is correct? Alien, sorry for the delay in responding to this, I haven’t been back here for a few days. **Power5 vs Pentium, "in my view"** You say “in my view”, but really it is in the view of the data, and all of the unbiased, independent analysts. **The Data** Integer Performance Xeon @ 3.6ghz 1,800 Itanium2 @ 1.6ghz 1,535 Power5 @ 1.9ghz (1 core=1,452) 1 processor=2904 Floating Point Performance Power5 @ 1.9ghz (1 core=2,796) 1 processor=5592 Itanium2 @ 1.6ghz 2,675 Pentium4 @ 3.6ghz 1,916 Xeon @ 3.6ghz 1,825 Benchmark Organizations: [http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc\_perf\_results.asp](http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp) [http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/](http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/) Articles/Web Pages: [http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/CPUs.html](http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/CPUs.html) > **[IBM benchmark leaves server rivals breathless](https://www.theregister.com/2004/11/18/ibm_shatterrs_tpcc/)** > > Power5 crushes Itanium for record score [http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000325](http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000325) And yes, the Power5 is most definately more powerful than any Pentium, Xeon, Itanium, UltraSPARC or Athlon on the market including the new dual core pentiums, and the new dual core AMD’s as well. **To Your Question of Price** Valid question. I have wondered the same thing. Power5’s aren’t cheap, but then again, neither is Intel. The processor is a variant of the Power5 (PowerPC 976) just like the Mac has a PowerPC 970 which is a variant on the Power4. They may save money in a variety of ways, like reducing L3 cache (probably won’t be the 32mb cache that is on the chip that crushed HP and all others in the TPC-C benchmark). I would guess they will do the same types of things they are doing in the Cell, which is removing stuff that doesn’t help for game type processing, or that they can work around through software/compilers. I’m really not sure where the most money is spent when making a processor, so I couldn’t tell you what they will do to get down to a reasonable price per unit. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/191 "2005-04-24T01:54:27Z")
> [@Cerri](#): > > I must admit all this talk about the actual technology comparisons are rather lost on me, so I’m not going to overly address them. You guys have gotten caught up in the hardware argument, and I’d like to see some of you address other points to the debate. > > As I said earlier, I am primarily a PC gamer. We have a PS2, but it’s mainly for the kids, because the consoles don’t really offer games in genres my fiance and I prefer (RTS and MMORPG), and where they do, the console falls short in the genre. (I’ve tried the EverQuest Online Adventures game for the PS2 by the way, and although it was an ok game, it definitely fell _way_ short of any PC MMO in pretty much every way, even with a keyboard, which is essential for a MMO.) > > Now, I also stated that we have multiple gamers in the house. Multiple PCs for the household are sensible as well as feasible, because PCs have so many uses. The kids need one to do their schoolwork, my husband needs one to do his work, and I need one because…well, because I love my PC, and I ain’t sharing it with anyone. 😉 You’re abosolutely right, the hardware talk is getting us nowhere. Your argument however seems to be that the future of gaming consumers is multi-person households, which is an interesting idea. In the end it’s who’s playing the games that counts, it’s not the hardware. Will gamers continue to play games after they get past their school years to settle down and marry? Some yes, but many? IMO, it pretty much boils down to game genres. There’s a huge potential for consoles to totally own the fixed camera genre (fighting games, racing, jumping puzzles). I played “Beyond Good and Evil” on the PC not that long ago, and the fighting scenes (fixed camera mode) were quite different from the rest of the game and a pain with the mouse. It can be done beautifully on PC, as proven in Jedi Knight & Jedi Academy. Playing an action game with a stick is like begging for mercy (or death). While console owners will continue to love their action games, it will be never be gaming the way gaming is done with a precise tool. Looking at the future, it’ll be interesting to see if the game industry continues to increase game complexity (not counting MMORPGs), or settle for better graphics inside a window of simplified gaming. The future might hold huge open landscape levels for single player action games, where the player can engage in a multitude of tasks that requires more than a console controller. On the other hand: Has there ever been released any ground-breaking intuitive game on consoles? Or will there even be any more ground-breaking intuitive games _ever_? Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Descent, System Shock, Deus Ex, etc, they all seem like ages ago. I’m sure someone will throw Halo in the mix, but IMO, that was a mediocre game by all standards. Some might say that Far Cry, tactical shooters, and MMORPGs have been pushing the game industry the last couple of years, and surely strategy games have made giant leaps lately, but I’m still waiting for the next big game that everybody will talk about 5-10 years from now. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/192 "2005-04-24T01:58:47Z")
In the fairness of sharing data, it might be interesting to add the current release by platform for the last 3 months: PS2 = 60 (65) PC = 56 (107) Xbox = 50 (51) GC = 21 (23) The primary number is the number of games rated by reviewers, the second includes additional games released during that time period. Doesn’t look like PC gaming is going away yet. From: [http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp](http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/193 "2005-04-24T02:44:34Z")
> [@Gozu](#): > > You shifted from consoles vs pc to 32 vs 64 bits. You must first establish that upcoming consoles have “less bits than pcs”. Turns out it’s not true. If you’re still talking about graphics, this _has_ been proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Computers push more pixels per square area, and PC gamers are already playing at the same or higher resolutions than next-gen console gamers. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/194 "2005-04-24T02:50:48Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I’m sorry, but this just not the case. 1080i is 1920x1080 resolution, period. The detail on all the ‘odd’ lines is offset by 1/59.94th in _time_, but there is spatial information there that is discrete from the ‘even’ lines. Claiming that the interlace of 1080i somehow halves the resolution is silly. Nope. 1080i is two interlaced 540 frames. Together they make up the 1920x1200 pixel picture (they only push half of those pixels per frame/group). That’s what the _i_ stands for in 1080i, and not the _p_ in 1080p. Pictures with fast moving objects are hurt by this. Randy Hoffner, ABC Television Network says: > [@](#): > > The advocates of 1080i HDTV support their cause with a flurry of numbers: 1080 lines, 1920 pixels per line, 2 million pixels per frame. The numbers, however, don’t tell the whole story. If we multiply 1920 pixels per line times 1080 lines, we find that each 1080i frame is composed of about two million pixels. 1080i advocates are quick to point out that a 720P frame, at 1280 pixels by 720 lines, is composed of about one million pixels. They usually fail to mention that during the time that 1080i has constructed a single frame of two million pixels, about 1/30 second, 720P has constructed two complete frames, which is also about two million pixels. Thus, in a given one-second interval, both 1080i and 720P scan out about 60 million pixels. The truth is that, by design, the data rates of the two scanning formats are approximately equal, and 1080i has no genuine advantage in the pixel rate department. In fact, if the horizontal pixel count of 1080i is reduced to 1440, as is done in some encoders to reduce the volume of artifacts generated when compressing 1080i, the 1080i pixel count per second is less than that of 720P. > **[StereoNET North America](https://www.stereonet.com/au/lofiversion/index.php/t6592.html)** > > StereoNET is a leading website in United States for the latest news, reviews and information relating to Hi-Fi, Headphones and Home Cinema. Top of page, highly recommended if you’re interested in this. You might also read: [http://www.videoessentials.com/resources\_DisplayDeviceSpecs.php](http://www.videoessentials.com/resources_DisplayDeviceSpecs.php) ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/195 "2005-04-24T02:58:14Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Valid question. I have wondered the same thing. Power5’s aren’t cheap, but then again, neither is Intel. The processor is a variant of the Power5 (PowerPC 976) just like the Mac has a PowerPC 970 which is a variant on the Power4. They may save money in a variety of ways, like reducing L3 cache (probably won’t be the 32mb cache that is on the chip that crushed HP and all others in the TPC-C benchmark). > > I would guess they will do the same types of things they are doing in the Cell, which is removing stuff that doesn’t help for game type processing, or that they can work around through software/compilers. > > I’m really not sure where the most money is spent when making a processor, so I couldn’t tell you what they will do to get down to a reasonable price per unit. You have been stating the superiority of the next-gen console prosessors in this thread, quoting benchmarking results available per today. And now you claim that this is _not_ the CPUs we’ll see in the next-gen consoles? That next-gen consoles CPUs will be a downgraded version? Care to explain? Currently top of the line desktop CPUs cost between $500-$1000. If there’s 3 CPUs even better than the best stuffed in a console for $299, can I disassemble the console, take out the CPUs and use them for something else? That was really my question. ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/196 "2005-04-24T07:44:16Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > If you’re still talking about graphics, this _has_ been proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Computers push more pixels per square area, and PC gamers are already playing at the same or higher resolutions than next-gen console gamers. No, we were talking about cpus. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/197 "2005-04-24T15:13:55Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > Nope. 1080i is two interlaced 540 frames. Together they make up the 1920x1200 pixel picture (they only push half of those pixels per frame/group). That’s what the _i_ stands for in 1080i, and not the _p_ in 1080p. Pictures with fast moving objects are hurt by this. **Alien** , if you want to argue that “interlace is bad”, that’s your priviledge. But you’re conflating this with resolution, which is misguided. 1080i is not 540p (there’s no such thing) times two. It’s 1920x1080 resolution. None of your cites dispute this, they just talk about how “bad” interlace is. Different subject. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/198 "2005-04-24T18:54:27Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > You have been stating the superiority of the next-gen console prosessors in this thread, quoting benchmarking results available per today. And now you claim that this is _not_ the CPUs we’ll see in the next-gen consoles? That next-gen consoles CPUs will be a downgraded version? Care to explain? > > Currently top of the line desktop CPUs cost between $500-$1000. If there’s 3 CPUs even better than the best stuffed in a console for $299, can I disassemble the console, take out the CPUs and use them for something else? That was really my question. Glad to explain. As I stated from the beginning, the processor in the Xbox2 is a custom variant of the Power5, which is being called the PowerPC 976. Optimized for the game environment. As for the downgrade: All of the mfg’s sell chips with different configurations of L1, L2 and L3 cache and clock speed, bus speed, etc., and each is at a different price point. Don’t worry, both the IBM (Power5) and HP machine (Itanium) had extremely expensive options, but it still tells you something when the best Power5 config performs 300% better than the best Itanium config. Some key points: 1. Microsoft spends significant money and risk switching from one platform and instruction set to a different one. Not a trivial decision, they must have seen a benefit. 2. Processor they switch to is proven in the market place to be well beyond anything else available (\>x2, although as we know some of that gap is being narrowed with AMD and Intel’s dual core, not all of it) 3. IBM is 4 years ahead of AMD and Intel with dual core technology (Power4 (chip before the Power5) was dual core in 2001, AMD/Intel in 2005) 4. IBM multithreading far more effective than Intel hyperthreading 5. They will be placing 3 of these processors in console. Now it is possible that they are putting 3 cores on 1 die, instead of 3 dual core procs, lets assume that is the case, which means \>x3 instead of \>x6. AMD and Intel release dual core so it’s back to \>x1.5 But it will run at 3ghz, AMD/Intel at 1.9ghz, now back to \>x2 6. Low level benchmarks testing just chip performance show Power5 winning significantly. 7. High level benchmarks testing throughput of a full system show Power5 winning at about the same rate as the low level benchmark. **Can You Grab CPU from XboX2 and Use It Somehow** Sure. But I assume you know it’s know the same instruction set as x86, so you couldn’t run windows etc. For me personally, I am in the middle of an AI project that requires far more power than I have on my PC. I plan on purchasing either 10 Xbox2’s, or 10 PS3’s and linking them together to get the power I need, should be cheaper than doing the same with PC’s. That’s why the PS3 and the cell has me excited, because each of those boxes has 8 processors, which means I’m really getting about 80 procs. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/199 "2005-04-24T18:56:57Z")
Should read “but I assume you know it’s NOT the same instructions set…” ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016/200 "2005-04-24T20:06:10Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I plan on purchasing either 10 Xbox2’s, or 10 PS3’s and linking them together to get the power I need, should be cheaper than doing the same with PC’s. > > That’s why the PS3 and the cell has me excited, because each of those boxes has 8 processors, which means I’m really getting about 80 procs. You’ll have some serious hurdles to overcome. They’d need to be hacked in order for you to run unsigned code on them and there is the matter of linking them up which is also non-trivial. Then you’d need to get your hands on development tools to code your application for them. I hope you’re not in a hurry 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-pc-games-is-nigh/298016.md?page=11)