The death of PC games is nigh!

Great Debates
41

I’m not saying that at all, xtisme. Both are prospering, that’s true. I don’t believe either will win out over the other. But I think a number of people in here seriously sell console gaming short because they are willing to spend the money on their PC as if it were the obvious thing to do. Of course when money is no real concern, the higher technology will win. This is not a stunning revelation. I could have told you that when I bought a tape player even as CDs were just coming out.

Sure! Hell, I play solitaire and minesweeper. Gaming is becoming more and more ubiquitous, not dying anywhere. It is pushing itself into handhelds, PDAs, and cell phones without leaving anywhere it has been, though arcades are definitely a dying breed.

If anything, the popularity of personal computing should have driven consoles down like consoles drove arcades down. But I don’t think that will happen any time soon, which to me says the superiority of PCs is vastly overstated.

42

In the short-term, consoles will continue to dominate the market. But there is a built-in-lmit here. Consoles simply can’t continue to do what they have done forever - be simple machines that can compete with a PC.

PC hardware is getting better not only in horsepower, but also standardization all the time. As the ease of using it increases, and games require less and less vis-a-vis built-in or come-with graphics cards, PC’s will inevitably pull back the market, probably permanently. The consoles are increasing in price, labeit slowly, but the PC’s are dropping, albeit slowly.

Sooner or later, consumers simply won’t need a console nd won’t have to worry about space or tech problems that much, and they’ll get pulled back over to the PC. Meanwhile, games like Diablo show that the PC side has as much draw as the consoles, given a game where the appeal of a simple mechanic is combiend with light system demands.

This won’t be the death knell for the console industry, but it is going to merge with the PC industry eventually. The seeds are already laid, and now many companies already do both types of games. I predict that the consoles will last another 20 years. By then, today’s high-end graphics cards will be 15 years out of date, and the newer models will be simply put in with your everyday PC. (Right next to the holographic screen. :smiley: )

The only way they would go longer is if they open up much more options for consumers - but then they’ll be competing with PC’s directly and this will leave behind most of the utility.

43

it strikes me the consoles will probably have increasing power on the portable systems, which will remain a strong market indefinitely.

44

While I don’t disagree with those that say the PC isn’t going away, I do disagree with those that think the console is merely a PC in console clothing.

Here is why:
PS3 - New modified Power processor with:
8 additional processors
250GFLOPS
25.6GBytes per second memory xfer rate,
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell1.html

If the hype is only half correct, this will be a very different creature than a PC (and no I do not work for Sony, IBM or Toshiba)

New Xbox and new Nintendo system both getting custom Power chips from IBM.
I think this is evidence that each is trying to optimize to games and outdo each other.
While the profit may not be in the hardware, it is clearly a significant differentiator.

45

Really? As far as I’ve noticed, intro price for console gaming since the Atari 2600 days have been 200-250 $US, with games from $20-$50. Always. From Atari to the PS2. Am I wrong? I admit I might be, but you seem to have seen some trend that I’ve missed so please elaborate.

That’s only because PCs claim to do a bit of everything. They will do a bit of everything if you sink enough money into them. But PC tech isn’t realistically getting cheaper, it is getting more powerful for the same price, same as consoles. A middle-tier computer from a vendor is still about $1100, same as it was when I bought my first one some years ago. Sure, you get more for the money, but applications are larger and more memory intensive, storage demands have increased, and so on. From my perspective there is a pretty decent balance between price and the march of technology that keeps pricing stable.

I expect PCs to replace consoles as soon as they replace every other form of entertainment electronics. But christ, anything could happen in the timescale you suggest of 20 years. For all I know we’ll have PCs on our watches and everything will be wireless by then! :smiley: (And we’ll all be living on the moon or underwater, and flying cars will be the norm, and…)

46

The graphics power of consoles is not as relevent as it used to be. We are reaching the point where the raw costs of actually coding games are surpassing their ability to be profitable. Sometimes in the next few years we are going to see a shift away from “bigger badder graphics” and heavy pre-written content and see more stylish, story-driven, created and emergent content games. Games right now have the costs of movies, but not nearly half the market or shelf-life.

47

I’d say#
The console is the kettle - capable of one function - boiling water - and highly optimised for it
The PC is the microwave - capable of a range of functions, including boiling water, competently, albeit not necessarily as efficiently or elegantly.
[sub]Furthermore the Apple mac is like the fondue set. the PalmOS handheld is like that slice of cheese that fell down the back of the fridge and the PocketPC handheld is like uncle Norman’s elderly, flatulent spaniel.[/sub]

48

I have replied to posts rather than people… If you posted more than once, I might 2 replies for you in different locations of my post.

Apos:

As I mentionned earlier, PCs are only more powerful than the latest console batch half the time. (around 3 years out of 5-6). People will stick with pcs, sure, but how many developpers will stick with it? It’s generally easier to program for than consoles because microsoft is doing a great job with DirectX. It’s extremely hard to optimize for because of its modular nature ((not a factor since we’re already assuming pcs are behind the curve half the time) ) and it’s harder to debug pc games for the same reason.

What the distante future holds, I do not know. Maybe PCs and consoles will fuse at some point but it’s not going to be anytime soon.
**
Alessan:**

You don’t need an expensive GPU for anything BUT games. (of course, there are specialized openGL accelerating cards for 3D modelling stuff but those are irrelevant to us). And many people only buy extra ram /faster cpus because of games. You’re definitely not saving money by gaming on the pc. All of that notwithstanding, every great game exclusive to consoles is a reason to buy one.

Brutus:

I’m going to ignore your “tentacle rape” comment because it’s not worthy of an answer. Also, you’re wasting money because you can Play KOTOR and KOTOR 2 on the pc.

Broomstick:

You’re not a gamer apparently. I’ve addressed the cost issue in my reply to Alessan.

Arwin:

Nothing to comment on. Seems we’re pretty much in sync.

BobLibDem:

What Arwin said.
**
Mangetout:**

Sure, there will always be games for the PC. I’m not predicting total extinction, just a severely reduced number of “blockbuster” games. The games that cost a lot of money to develop. It’s a certainty that homebrew pc games are always going to exist. Most people don’t care much about those however.

mmsmith537

Consoles are not dumbed down cheap pcs. I don’t feel a need to argue that.

Erislover:

Amen to that. I couldn’t bring myself to play Kotor for the PC because it was just SCREAMING for a gamepad. (believe it or not, the game didn’t support gamepads!). I agree with pretty much everything else you said. However, in your last point, you fail to take into account the fact that games are getting more and more expensive to develop for. And people aren’t going to spend $100 on a game so the logical alternative is to switch to consoles and make more money. I’m not making this up, PC developpers have been increasingly complaining about this.

Xtisme:

We don’t really disagree. I don’t think pc gaming will decline to the level of cellphone games but you got my gist. That’s what this debate is about.
**
even sven:**

You’ve compared pros and cons of pcs and consoles and it’s obvious from them that consoles win by a very large margin. Mods are not important to the majority of gamers. I haven’t been excited about one since Counter-Strike. That was a long long time ago. Your gripe about the theoretical evil company restricting you is baseless. There are plenty of violent, weird or original games on consoles. Here are three: God of War, Rez, Katamari Damaci. Even if it wasn’t (and by god it is, three times over) gamers don’t share your qualms.

RaftPeople:

Your conclusion is very interesting. At first I just thought you were crazy, but then I thought about it and it might actually be accurate if one doesn’t push it further.
**
FilmGeek:**

I was referring to the leading consoles of the last 3 generations.
**
Hammer:**

Interesting insight. 3DO tried that and well…they crashed and burned (not necessarily for that reason. I actually don’t know why it happened, the 3DO was a great platform). In any case, if it happens, it will be in the distant future. I don’t see Sony or Nintendo surrendering the war. Especially not Sony.
**
bump:**

$50-200? Try $300-$900. Your argument isn’t valid for the majority of pc gamers. Heck, it’s common to drop $300 just on a gpu. At the low-end, some will spend $150 on a graphic card, $75 on extra ram and they will upgrade their Mobo+CPU ($250) much more frequently than they would otherwise (around 2 years instead of 6). On the high end, $600 gpu, $300 memory, $1000 CPU+ Mobo, $150 Sound Card, $300 speakers, $100 headphones, $60 mouse and $800 monitors are not uncommon. All math aside, i’ve bought consoles and PCs for over 10 years and i know that pc gaming is significantly more expensive. I know there are freaks out there who don’t mind playing at 20 fps at 640x480 with minimum details but that’s just what they are, non-representative freaks. The general population wants at least a stable 30 fps at medium settings and 800x600 or 1024x768. The purists want 1600x1200 at 60+fps with everything enabled. Some people also play “behind the times” and save tons of money doing so but they are also a rare breed.

Whack-a-Mole:

You misunderstood what I said. Sound is irrelevant in this context. Of course bad sound can ruin a game. I was talking about potential. As in, can I put cd-quality music in my game or am I reduced to midis?
**
kanicbird:**

I can relate to what you said (I actually play my consoles right here, on my monitor). However, it is of negligible impact to the gamers and the industry.

Kinthalis:

I’ve already addressed that.

Tastes if Chocolate:

Yes, depending on when you buy it, you will drop $200-$350 for a fully usable console. for the rest of your comment, read my reply to bump.
**
xtisme:**

Once again, everything you’ve said is right. You don’t realize it but we agree. I don’t believe pc gaming will ever drop to that of PDAs of cellphones.

CurtC:

Correct, they either lose money or make negligibles amounts on the consoles. The games bring in the profits.

Smiling Bandit:

Who knows what the future holds…

RaftPeople:

Yep.

even sven:

Nah, graphics still have a very long way to go. So do physics and AI among other things.

49

Basically, what we’re seeing in the market is manufacturers differentiating their products. Earlier tonight I was watching a consumer program on televisions about copy protection. As part of the program, the host visited an electronic store where he was introduced to a DVD recorder. This device enables you to store a program to disk or to drive, or play your own DVDs. Personally I don’t want separate devices for playing DVDs or music, making a phone call or writing a letter. But people have different needs, which is exactly why this trend will continue.

As for the consol versus PC debate, I think it’s important to note that development will not stop on either. Gates said 20 years ago that 0.512 MB RAM would be more than enough for any PC user. I fondly remember my 386 SX with 4 MB RAM and a 20 MB hard drive of 1993. Last year, the game Knights of the Old Republic occupied 4 gigs on my computer harddrive. This is the reality. Hardware development will continue, also for the computer - don’t mind that computers today are more than good enough for surfing the web or writing a letter. I’ll bet you this: In ten or fifteen years we’ll see computers with a terabyte RAM and ditto processors. Computer screen resolutions will never “settle down” at 1600x1200, and then consoles crawl up from behind. Mutiply by ten, mutiply by hundreds!

Which brings me to another point: There’s absolutely no way that consoles will catch up with (or outperform) computer gaming. I notice some people in this thread are talking about how well the upcoming PS3 will perform. Well, even if it turns out that good (including bus architecture and data read/write speeds), give it 6 months and computers will be ahead again. And the reason for this is not a hardware issue, it’s in the interaction between hardware and software. Textures suited for 1600x1200 will always look better than 800x600, but even that isn’t the issue here. What truly makes great gaming is alterable enviroments, which requires a lot of RAM. What makes great graphics isn’t images, but the use of in-game real-time effects, like lighting, shadows, etc. These effects are not textures, they are created on the fly while gaming. And to create these effects you’ll not only need the code in the software, it also has to be supported by the hardware. This also applies to other areas as well, like data storage. And here’s the crux: A new console comes out one every 5 years maybe. A new step in computer gaming is taken every 6 monts. The truth is that it’s PC gaming who is pushing the industry forward, consoles are just following suit.

I believe both consoles and PC gaming will continue to exist for a long time because they serve separate markets. The advantage of a console is that it is well suited for sports, martial arts-, racing games, and, most importantly, you can have a good time with friends at home. On the PC, the mouse + keyboard combo is superior almost beyond imagination in any type of first person, strategy, or role playing game (though it does take a little while to get used to), and it’s about a personal gaming experince, close up to the computer screen.

While I do expect mergers in the console industry, I believe that the only thing that can change the current market split between consoles and PCs is if the number of titles available for the PC drops quite a bit. But as xtisme said, as long as people buy computers, games will be created for computers (in fact, the only threat I can think of is pirating). We might as well argue that the PC itselves will die. After all, if you can play games, surf the net and write letters on a console, who needs a computer anyway?

50

Without going into my feelings about computer gaming* (that’s a 2000-word Pit diatribe, and that’s if I’m toning it down)…

I bought a PS2 because it has a whole lot of games that I find really fun. Same reason I got the Dreamcast and the Super NES before that (although that was hit-and-miss due to being in the teeth of the “family system” nonsense).

It doesn’t bother me at all that these are specialized systems that can’t do what a computer can, becuase they’re different systems. Why does it always have to be one or the other? If I have to pick one, fine, the computer, but that doesn’t mean that the specialized toybox is worthless.

At any rate, computer gaming isn’t in trouble. Like ballroom dancing, rock climbing, and the Ultimate Fighting Championship, it’ll always have its niche.

*I will say that, based on factors such as availability, cost, compatibility, ease of support, controls, etc., you have to be MUCH more of a gaming fanatic to be really into computer games than console games. That’s as far as I’ll go.

51

Just a hijack to say, “hell yeah!”

52

Many good points and I would generally agree with most. As I read your post and think about it, I realize that, like most things, there is no simple answer.

A few observations:
Console vs PC
Ability to upgrade PC vs new console platform every X years does indeed make it a never ending cycle of leap frog. PC with continuous improvement while console is on the few year plan (which is an eternity in the computer world)

PS3/Cell
If the PS3 delivers, then we are looking at a significant departure from past trends.
Previously the PC’s could play catch up relatively quick because, for the most part, even with somewhat customized hardware, the consoles were still tied to the current technology and trends (I know the PS2 also had a unique processor, but it didn’t live up to the hype. Again this is an IF the ps3/cell delivers).

But in this case, Sony, Toshiba and IBM have created something very optimized to multi-media. For a PC to compete, either Intel will need to radically alter their approach to CPU design (which I don’t see happening for a variety of reasons, but primarily compatability issues), or the GPU mfg’s will need to duplicate a cell type design and the entire combination of components will need to be re-worked to accomodate the capabilities (which seems like a more likely approach, and to some extent already exists).
Tangent #1, but still related:
By using cell processor in various high-volume consumer electronics devices (consoles, tv, etc.) they should be able to keep the unit price down which will give them an advantage in $ per processor power over Intel processors. Due to compatability issues, Intel shouldn’t be too worried in the PC arena in the short run, but in the long run if this new processor is in every other type of device being sold, there may come a point in time where a new device (console turned into mini-PC?) begins to creep into their arena, especially for a cheap home game playing/web surfing/e-mail system. Next thing you know that’s 80% of the world market and Intel, while they don’t go away and PC’s don’t either, becomes a more niche market like mainframes today.

Tangent #2, unrelated:
As you can probably tell, I’m excited about the possibilities of the cell processor. If it really works as advertised I am going to buy about 10 of them so I can hook them together for an AI project I’m working on.

53

Alien

Your arguments have already been made and i’ve addressed them in my first and second post.

54

Consoles aren’t increasing in price. The Sega Saturn launched at $400, which would be absolutely unthinkable now (of course, everyone knew it was stupid back then, too). The Playstation launched at $300, and that’s not even going into things like the 3DO, which could be hugely expensive.

It probably just seems like they’re increasing in price since by the time a new wave of them is about to be released, the last generation is down to something like $150-$200 a unit.

I don’t think either market is going anywhere. As others have said, there will always be a group of hardcore PC gamers optimizing their systems and modding like crazy. That said, there’s also no way you’ll ever get your more laid back, games-as-a-hobby types to shell out hundreds of dollars for the graphics card they might need to play the latest PC games when they could plunk down the same amount of money for a flashy new console that probably won’t need any upgrades (barring stuff like the N64’s Expansion Pack, which I don’t think anyone liked anyway) and that’ll have progressively better-looking games released for it for at least five years, so I don’t see the console market going anywhere, either.

55

Just because the latest graphic cards cost $400 doesn’t mean you have to buy them. You can get something that is good value and good quality for a lot less than that.

Right now, for example, you can get yourself perfectly good, powerful, nicely overclockable cards like the Nvidia GF FX 5900xt for under $160 new, or pay even less for comparable ATI offerings. And if you were to select something less powerful, you would still end up with a decent experience. These mid to low end cards, while not the latest and greatest, still blow any console out of the water and clear into orbit on any and all aspects of visual performance.

A couple of posters are talking about the power of the next generation of consoles – but the new super consoles are not here yet, all we have to go on is hype. If you claim that the next life cycle of consoles will be incredibly powerful, you can also claim that the next generations of PC GPUs will be incredibly powerful. The difference is that you can go shopping for a new GPU every few months and hold off if you don’t find something you are happy with, but you are stuck with the same console technology for 5 year cycles. Sure, the PS2 and XBox were nice when they were first released (though even then they were not superior to PCs available at the time); but today they are seriously dated compared to a good mid-range PC.

64 bit computing and beyond. Whatever the console market throws up in the near future–assuming it’s as impressive as the hype makes it out to be–there will be equivalent or improved performance from the PC camp relatively soon. There will be no enduring gap, or if there will be one, it is likely to be the other way (i.e., the situation we have now, where consoles are underpowered compared to most PCs).

As for the argument that a very few console ports for PCs do not support game controllers, that is simply personal preference. For example, even though I have worn out countless joysticks since I started gaming, I now prefer the mouse and keyboard combination for playing. Only in certain situations will I pull out the game controller, which incidentally is usually well supported. Typically I only need the controller for console games such as Silent Hill (games that actually look better after they are ported to the PC, but that have console “feel” and control schematics for which a controller is better suited). Either way you have the choice of controller or keyboard/mouse, but it seems to me that there are only a few games in which a mouse/keyboard user will fail to perform better than a game controller user. That’s because the former is probably more efficient and adaptive… and you can’t beat the precision of the mouse. On the other hand the game controller has the advantage of being physically more convenient (you can use it in any position) and easier to master.

The death of PC gaming is simply unlikely to happen any time soon. I don’t see a dearth of game releases. I don’t see unavailability of hardware. I don’t see a lack of inexpensive hardware or systems. I don’t see a shortage of game development houses, publishers, venture capitalists, etc. And so forth.

As for the Japanese, they have their own specific problems regarding games. Here’s an interesting article from BusinessWeek (that link may not work, but search for the article name on their web site to access it):

56

You can also get a console for under $160. Quite plainly put, every gamer who can afford to keep his PC up so that it can play all new releases decently, can typically easily afford to have a console on the side and that is exactly what is happening.

In theory. But the games are so inefficiently programmed and most PCs so unstable that only few games actually are a better experience on the PC, even on really high-end PCs. Just go to IGN and check out some of the platform comparisons they, when they even include the PC.

Of course. But each generation blew away the PCs at launch, and then they improved as the programmers proceeded to squeeze more out of the same hardware each year, with an extent of improvement that the PC developers didn’t seem to be able to keep up with, despite hardware upgraders.

Games still improve thanks to developers, and some of the best and best looking games can’t even be compared, since they’re quite simply not available on both platforms. In theory, the PC is a lot more powerful, but in practice you rarely see it happen. A game like Gran Turismo 4 has better looking cars than any of its rivals, through clever use of limited technology.

There’s always a turning point. But it doesn’t matter for the consoles really, because they’re insured to receive games for their specifications for at least 5 years, whereas a 5 year old pc can’t run any of todays games decently without practically upgrading it straight into a fully new computer.

No, a true death isn’t likely. But there’s a very clear trend that is not in favor of PC. I agree with the article and other posters that the PC will always have some games, but the consoles are definitely winning the market, with PC games soon dipping under 20% of the total market share.

57

I know it is hard to believe for some people, but I’ve been using a computer since the Commodore 64 days and the keyboard and mouse are not superior to a controller for me. Keyboards as “good controllers”, to me, are another example of sloppy design being masked by wiggle room. I think the only place I’ve found the mouse to shine is in strategy games. Everywhere else, intelligent design wins over k+m combo for me.

58

Keyboard! Keyboard.

That’s a nice link, Arwin. Sales have incredibly increased since 2000 where I believe they were around 4 billion. That’s amazing.

59

It really depends on the game and what the game demands are to control everything. Sure a controller is better for a good shoot-em up between planes arcade style. But if you are into serious flight sims the only choice is a keyboard. Same goes for many other games. In general, the more complexity/depth the game has the more likely you are to need a keyboard so you can access the myriad possibilities the game offers. Certainly clever interface design is important and can go a long way to extending a controller’s capabilities but there are still limits.

As for the new specs on the next generation of consoles they do look quite impressive. But as also mentioned it is so far just on paper and a lot of hype. I recall when Rambus released RDRAM for the PC. On paper its specs looked like your computer would get a huge benefit from it. Nevermind that it was monstrously expensive. When put into use however it showed almost no performance increase (or at least so little as to be not worth mentioning and certainly not worth the price).

I do not think a new game console has ever beat the performance capabilities of a top-notch PC when the console was released and again as mentioned PCs have skated right past any console’s capabilities in short order. Remember, they are selling these things for a few hundred dollars and they have a liofecycle of five years. They have to cram all they can at the outset in one to give it enough legs to make 5 years.

While you can distinguish between a PC and console under the hood they are still the same things…computers. If a top of the line video card costs $400 how do you think a manufacturer will manage to squeeze in an even better video card and a CPU and a motherboard and a CD drive and all the other bits and still sell the machine for less than $400? Certainly a manufacturer gets fantastic pricing deals on their components in the machine (they do not buy retail parts) but nevertheless you can see how it is very difficult to squeeze better equipment into a console than top-line computer components and still keep it cheap. Heck…video card manufacturers have to wonder whether they are doing themself a favor if they sell Microsoft an uber video card for a console that beats the pants off anything they sell for the PC market and expect consumers to pay $400 for the worse video card for the PC than just buying a new console for $300.

All that said I will say I have recently noted a sad lack of any decent new PC game titles at the game store. It used to be I could count on a new game every two months or so…sometimes more. Since Christmas I have not bought a single game and it is not for lack of wanting too. There does seem to be a serious slow down in this area and it bums me out. Going into EB Games tells the story. The PC game section is now one rack in the back corner. The other 95% of the store is all console games.

60

They don’t need to beat the computer. A general purpose PC with the specs of the GameCube will vastly underperform the GC. You’d never get Metroid Prime on a 500MHz PC with 40MB of RAM! Fixed hardware offers significant advantages.

Again this comparison is made. Top-notch PCs are not a realistic comparison for any purpose. They don’t exist for the general public. It is not an architecture you shoot for in designing a game, unless you’re in the million dollar lemonade stand business.

I don’t believe this comes anywhere close to modelling the situation. My microwave is a computer by such an account. After all, it has a microcontroller in it, some memory, a display… PCs are general purpose machines, and they will always underperform comparable fixed applications given the same specs. General purpose = additional layers of abstraction = ovehead. Of course PCs will outperform fixed hardware apps: they have to in order to be “general purpose”. But when the dollar is driving your specs rather than trying to get to the next screen resolution and framerate, consoles will nail PCs in the ass consistently WRT games. This isn’t because they are better computers, but better game play stations. That is their purpose, and they do it well for the money.

If you are interested in the superiority of PCs, make a realistic comparison.

From scratch:
middle-tier PC on sale with extra rebates: $600
19" CRT: say you get one for $150
Video card: the infamous $150 in this thread
additional RAM: $30
One game: $50
Total: $1000
Game rental: not currently known or extremely limited
Typical upgrade cycle: 2-5 years
Cost/upgrade: $200-$500 (incl. new graphics card, 1 game, possibly new mobo and processor which may or may not necessitate new RAM, assume infinite life hard drives, monitors, peripherals like keyboards, mice, CD/DVD drives)

Let’s not even get into setup times to play a game. That’s just cruel.

Console, early cycle but not release: $200
27" HD-Ready Television: $400
One game: $50
Total: $650
Game rental: inexpensive for most titles, nearly ubiquitous
Typical upgrade cycle: 5 years
Cost/upgrade: $250 (incl. 1 game, new console, assume infinite life television, peripherals included each cycle)

Of course, the comment has been made repeatedly, “I already have a computer!” Well, I already have a television, too. I don’t intend to argue that PCs are inferior to consoles when price is more or less not a big issue, but this is only true for a small portion of the market—as the increasing popularity of consoles is showing.