I think something is on it’s deathbed but it’s not PC gaming. Someone mentioned it above, but merely the existence of the PC means there will continue to be games for it. Some games are just better on a PC. What is going to happen is a convergence in the console space. We already saw it with Sega deciding it was more profitable to drop the hardware and sell software for the other guys. I think it may take another generation but I could easily see Nintendo going the same route. The real money is in the software as the hardware is typically sold at a loss or break even point. That leaves Microsoft and Sony and eventually Bill Gates will remember his fortune came from software and not hardware. Games are becoming more and more like movies and you don’t see directors inventing new cameras for every movie, or movies that can only be shown in these theaters. I really believe we will see a platform standard with several manufacturers.
I would have to disagree with “PC’s continue to be more powerful”
PC’s are more general purpose machines and as stated in the OP, it costs more to get similar performance. There isn’t the economic incentive for companies to create PC’s optimized to individual tasks (like games) as much as there is to create reasonably powerful PC’s at a price point that consumers will buy.
In addition, (again as stated in OP), new consoles out perform PC’s for games at that point in time. PC’s then catch up.
But consider this:
PS3 with new cell processor, which, if it performs half as well as specs imply, will outperform any PC for game type processing (single precision floating point operations) by a huge margin.
And, if priced like other consoles, will be in the few hundred dollar range.
I could buy a new one every 2 years and break even with the cycle of upgrade/new PC.
My personal conclusion:
The console is the microwave.
The PC is the oven.
Our kitchens have both.
One quick nitpick: did you mean the GameCube, Xbox and PS2? (not snes, psx and ps2). I’m confused, if you didn’t mean these three.
I own two pcs, one (older) mac, and many consoles (NES, GC, PS2, XBox, N64, GB, GBA, PSX) and they’re all good in different ways. PC gaming isn’t ‘dying’, but all systems are evolving so they can survive.
(though, I gotta, say, playing a Sega produced game on a Nintendo produced platform seems a bit odd to my 80’s soul)
But that would severely limit 2 key things that companies really care about:
- Ability to differentiate (same hardware limits potential WOW factor of new advancements)
- Ability to lock in the masses to your platform by offering more/better games that only run on your hardware
Amen. From my experience, it’s easy enough to spend between $50-200 and improve some aspect of my PC by quite a bit- new graphics card, more RAM, new CPU/motherboard, etc…
Can’t do that with consoles, at least not yet. And when you can, there really won’t be much to separate them from PCs.
(note: Microsoft’s XBox is a PC in console’s clothing). Anything using a Pentium, the DirectX API and a hard drive is essentially a PC, no matter what input devices and OS you slap on it.
Sound most definitely is not irrevelant. It is easily overlooked yes but when a game gets it wrong it can ruin it and when it gets it right it can lift the whole experience. I prefer playing with headphones on just to get the better immersion and with positional audio hearing a zombie creeping up behind you can really jazz the whole game experience.
I wouldn’t count televisions in a league with monitors just yet. A TV that can hit the resolutions of a computer monitor are very expensive (thousands of dollars). A computer monitor can be had for $175. Also, I have a plasma television and playing my XBox on it shows it gets burn-in quite easily. I have since given up with the XBox on that set as I won’t be ruining it to play games. Also, I run all my games today standard at 1280x1024 and some games I run at 1600x1200. 800x600 is at the backend of “common” these days and well on the way out.
What’s more is graphic quality is so much more than just base resolution. Antialiasing, real-time lighting effects, shadows, etc. can add very noticeably to a game. There is a HUGE difference between any game on the XBox and a top-notch PC game running on a high-end graphics card. They simply are not in the same league…especially if the XBox is on a standard low-def televison.
There is a place for consoles but as of now they can come nowhere close to the depth and complexity of a PC game in most cases (although KOTOR does show even a console can get a truly classic and amazing game). I cannot imagine trying to play something like Rome: Total War on a console. As for online games without a keyboard I think you lose a great deal of the point (interaction with real people all over the world). Sure, you can use voice chat with consoles but in a large MMOG you cannot chat that way with everyone…quite simply you need the keyboard.
The PC as a game platform is long from dead but I do see more focus going to the game consoles. Their simplicity and low price point is very attractive to many people and many of the games are fun if usually a bit shallow. But for the best-of-the-best games I still think the PC reigns supreme.
I haven’t played a console game in many moons, but that said:
I feel that the PC offers a more intimate experence. You are up close to the screen instead of on the couch with a TV 6 or more feet away. The keyboard and mouse become ‘natural’ extentions of your arms, and are layed out in a more natural position then a game controller, which feels, well like a game controller.
I’m not saying that a keyboard makes intutive sense when playing warcraft, but when you know (learn) the keys, your arms are in a more comfortable position.
Since the screen is closer and higher resolution, you can receive more information from the screen. You can have more information available to you.
Also most people have a nice swivel type chair for their PC, which acts as the command seat for the PC game.
(Also my monitor is bigger then my TV, so I’d rather use that, but that’s just me).
Exactly, I don’t see where people get the idea that consoles do graphics better. They don’t. Event he new generation is usually surpased in hardware power by the PC within weeks or months of release, and games usually catch up within an year or two.
Case in point the Xbox. When it came out it was the best looking console system out there. They made a huge deal about the modified Geforce 3 card it used for graphics processing. Soon after the xbox hit store shelves we had ATI 9500’s and Geforce 4 Ti on the market for PC’s at reasonable prices.
jsgoddess, I don’t know what the cause of it is, but that is certainly plausible. Either way, I buy CivIII and find that they’ve already released revisions up to something like 1.27 and I think, “Maybe if you’d just spent more time testing your game you wouldn’t have that problem.” The only exception to this rule I found was Morrowind’s “Dirty Disc Error.” Load of crap. Try, “Can’t put as much thought into making a stable game as I can a really creative one.” That problem followed it over onto the XBox version as well.
I don’t think you’re right, xtisme, that consoles’ failing is that they aren’t as general purpose as PCs. A desk or bed isn’t as general purpose, either, but you still buy one. DVD players aren’t general purpose, but those generate tidy profits. Nearly any schmoe can drop less than $250 bucks and get a great system and some excellent games, and two thirds of them will also play DVDs. Hell, I found a disc+memory card combo that turns the PS2 into a multi-region DVD player without firmware limits.
I think the lack of RTS and other strategy titles on consoles speaks more of the market forces even sven notes than any technical difficulty. I had as much fun with Dune2000 on my PS as I did with it on my PC.
On a personal note, I wish dev kits for consoles were more freely available, or available at all, to the public. I think that would drastically change the market that I think is already tilted towards consoles. But actually, does anyone have sales figures? Who is dominating the market right now, PC gamers or console gamers?
Yes, bump, you can spend $200 to improve your console experience, seeing as that is the average cost of new systems slightly after initial release. If you’re looking to spend that much more often than console release schedules, you’ve exactly stumbled on why PC gaming is considered more expensive.
Whack-a-mole, there are keyboards for consoles. As online gaming gets to be more popular with the console crowd, you’ll see it more often, but I had a keyboard for my Dreamcast that was fine for tinkering online and for Phantasy Star Online (when it was free, grumble). And who could skip Typing of the Dead? 
Also, I don’t think your “top of the line PC v. XBox” is a meaningful comparison. I saw a 40" plasma that knocked the socks off every display in my house, but what has that got to do with anything? It is out of my reach.
Here’s an interesting article.
Word.
~shameless console fan
Others have posted good reasons why the PC’s not pinin’ for the fjords just yet… but I haven’t seen my main reason, yet.
I’ve got two gaming PCs, a PS2, and XBox… and one TV. I do most of my gaming on the PCs, because I can do that while my wife watches TV (or while I’m watching TV). I can’t do that with the consoles- I’d have to have an extra TV set to do that. TVs are generally fairly big, and I can’t spare the room for another set (and that’d be another expense, since I’d want it to be a fairly good one).
People keep mentioning how much more expensive a PC is then a console game. I’m not buying this any more.
$200 console, 1 controller, 1 memory stick, DVD enabling kit
$20 each/additional controller
$20 each/additional 8meg memory cards
$10 each/cable extensions
These are all the base level versions, from my local big box store.
Assuming you will want 4 controller, at least 2 cable extensions, and at least 2 memory cards.
Minimum system=$300, no games included, no TV.
If I already own my PC monitor, I can get a base level computer for $600-800, and that is dropping fast.
In addition, only part of the population is going to be satisfied with a system or game that is limited to input from a console controller. Most of my favorite games use keyboards extensively for non-motion input, like communication.
Possibly, you will continue to see households that use both. More likely, you will see integration of the 2. Considering that Microsoft and Sony own a big part of the console world, my money is on the integration.
The point I was trying to make (badly it seems) is that you are going to find it hard to balance your checkbook, do your taxes, edit and print your personal pictures, serf the web, chat on message boards, or the other thousands of things that one uses a PC for. You don’t HAVE to buy one…but nearly everyone already HAS one, and that trend seems to be continueing to grow every year.
To continue, as long as PC’s are necessary, folks are going to want games on them…and folks are going to write games for them. No? Well, my PDA has got games on it, my phone has got games on it, even my pager (when I still had one) had games on it…hell, I’m surprised my toaster doesn’t have a game or two tucked into it somewhere (it cost enough). Something as all purpose as a PC, with its huge amount of processing power and the very general nature of it is going to make it inevitable that games are continue to be made for it as long as it lasts…which in my mind is going to be for quite some time. So, what I am saying is that ‘The death of PC games is nigh!’ is a bit premature IMHO.
-XT
Oh…I also meant point out I never said consoles are failing or where they are failing or anything else like that. To my mind there is plenty of room out there. As I pointed out, I own a console myself (though I play most of my games on the PC). All I was talking about was the death of PC games thing. I make no comment on where consoles are headed one way or the other.
-XT
“Failing” as in “comparitive flaw” not as in “performing below adequacy.” Sorry that wasn’t more obvious, xtisme.
But the console game makers don’t care about selling consoles, they want to sell games. I have the impression that they lose money on the consoles (is this true? I’m basing it on the level of technology that’s in them).
I feel a little lost in this conversation, though. The last real console playing I did was on the Atari 2600 back when that was the thing to have, and PC gaming to me means taking a break from working and playing a game of Freecell.
Ah, I see. Well, I didn’t mean to say consoloes were ‘comparitive flaw’(ed) either compared to PC’s. Its comparing a hammer to a table saw and saying that the hammer is flawed because it doesn’t do what the table saw does. They both do well what they were designed to do. I was only trying to make a case that consoles are one trick ponies (i.e. they play games…thats pretty much it), while PCs are general purpose devices that people use for myriad things…including games. Since the trend seems to be if it has a screen put a game on it, I think the claim that the death of PC gaming is closing in on us is highly premature. YMMV of course, but I’ll believe it when I see less new games on the shelves. Seeing the success of games like WoW or Rome Total War make me skeptical that its going to happen soon…
-XT
Yes, but a $300 computer can do that. It won’t play Doom3. Dollar for dollar, I think there is better gaming to be had in consoles. Sure, if money is not really an issue you can stay on top of PC gaming. Halo2 and Metroid were just incredible games. Add in the Zelda series, GTA, and survival horror and I’m busy for a long time. Honestly, I’d love to get into MMORPGs but I can’t justify the money for monthly fees, nevermind the time necessary to devote to the game.
Absolutely. PC gaming isn’t going anywhere. But the surge consoles have seen in the last five years do demonstrate that there is a large market PC games can’t touch right now, and in the forseeable future won’t touch.
Partly true as it seems only Microsoft is losing money on them. (note the article below is three years old…not sure how things stand today)
Couple of things here.
First off, you are thinking like a high end player. I agree, for MY gaming needs, a $300 computer won’t cut it (not without some serious upgrades after I get my grubby little hands on it anyway). However, for the likes of my father or other gamers, it will do just fine. My dad plays computer card games like bridge…and a $300 computer does fine.
Secondly, the fact that you can’t afford MMORPG’s (or that you budget differently with different priorities) is irrelevant in this instance. Obviously there is a HUGE market for such things, if the amounts of players and the dollar figures are any indications. So, its fairly obvious to me that since these numbers are still rising (WoW just broke existing one year dollar records IIRC previously held by Everquest), I say again the speculation of the demise of PC gaming is premature…which is all I was saying. 
I’m not disagreeing with you here. There is a large market for both, and both continue to prosper. You seem to be taking my words as saying that its a zero sum game between them, with one eventyally rising up to ultimate dominion or something, throwing the other down to defeat. I’m not seeing it that way. There is a HUGE (and rising) market for entertainment…both of these avenues (and others) meet that need and both can prosper pretty much independantly.
-XT
I should note that while the article mentions Microsoft is (or at least was) the only company losing money on the harware sale of their console that does not necessarily mean the other companies are making money on their console sales (I would guess they are close to break-even). It has been my impression that the hardware is not where the profit is for these guys…they get a piece of the action of every title sold for their machines and that ultimately is the profit generator.