The death of PC games is nigh!

Great Debates
81

Only when you define “quality” as “higher resolution… which I don’t care about anyway, except when I do to make a meaningless point.” I have yet to see one game which a console cannot play that a computer can. I see plenty of games that the console market doesn’t seem to like, to plenty of people’s frustration. As buggy as it was, it was great to get a game like Morrowind for a console. I hope the sales convince more game makers to look to the console market.

Sorry, I know of no other way to make meaningful comparisons. When you compare equal stats, consoles win. When you compare stats to price, consoles win. Today’s console games are still better than the comparable PC games in their day, when, presumably, you’d have made the same arguments about why PCs are better than consoles. You say it is about quality, and argument I presume has always been the case. You admit that today’s consoles are as powerful as yesterday’s PCs (though I think they are more powerful for this application). Why would the quality have vanished? Today’s console games are as good if not better than yesterday’s PC games. It is about quality for me, too. Yes, you say it is about quality, but what you seem to be implying is that it is about which games are more technically advanced right now (a property that dubiously affects quality of gaming). AI? —Hell, Turok had some great AI. Halo has some great AI. It isn’t about graphics? CivII for the PS performed the same calculations the PC version did. Dune2000 had the same play as the PC version (I own both). So what is it about? You don’t like that I try to make the comparison when both are considered as equal as possible. Explain to me how I should make the comparison, then.

I have a hard time believing this from the PC games I have played, but I cannot suggest I am all that well-versed.

Wow. I haven’t owned a sports title since Tecmo Bowl for the NES, I don’t play with friends. How could I have liked gaming all this time?

82

Gozu, you keep mentioning this. I just can’t see how it can be true, and you have certainly not proved it. I have no doubt that a console will outperform a computer with identical or similar specs, but the thing is, they aren’t identical, computers are way more powerful. Consider this: I too could play in “console resolution mode”, at 640x480, if I wanted to, and I would blow any console out of the water in game performance. I can’t see how you can dispute that. So, do you have a cite for your claim or is this just your personal opinion?

You also said in your OP that “the best you [computers] can do right now is … a 1920x1200 resolution. This is not going to improve for the next 10 years at least. PC games will no longer look sharper than their console counterparts.” Well, color me unimpressed. Do you really believe that computer hardware development will suddenly cease for some reason? Hardware developers have continuously pushed the limits for years. Why didn’t they settle for 1280x1024, which is good enough for most monitors on the market today? Why did they go for 1920x1200? And for what strange reasons will they not go even further in the future?

Anyway, this discussion about hardware performance is, as TonyF bluntly put it, a dead end. What will determine gaming in the future is one thing: Is there a market? I think we can all agree that there is. And as long as computers are the primary tool for a part of that market, games will continue to be made for computers. The only thing that can change all this is an alternative future where computer games becomes considerably more expensive than console games, at the same time as consoles are able to neutralize the advantages of the computer, including the keyboard/mouse combo. Then we might see buyers opting for a console to satisfy their gaming needs, and the sale of computer games could plummet. (Actually, I can think of only one thing that could benefit the console industry in the future, and that is the day when 40"-50" sized flatscreen HD-TVs is standard equipment in every home.)

But I don’t think that will happen. And even such a scenario comes with the big BUT: As long as consoles remains closed as a platform to fresh game developers with limited resources, computers will continue to have a viable game development community. It’s true that mods are unimportant on the gaming market, but these developers represents the knowhow, the enthusiasm and the originality that will define gaming in the future. And they are developing for the PC, not consoles.

Whack-a-Mole mentioned that in his opinion there are fewer computer games available in the store. That might be true (I buy everything online). But it’s also true that in 2004 we saw the highest number ever of new releases in the great-action-games department, and on the surface, 2005 looks to be even better.

83

In the UK there is a £10 price differential between new PC and console games. In dollars that’s coming on for $18 I think. Maybe you PC gamers in the USA are getting screwed?

I don’t own any console simply because the range and quality of games is so limited.

I’ll believe the hype over the new machines when I see both the performance being delivered and the use made of it. I doubt the product made available will come close to the sheer range possible on the PC.

Like a lot of posters here, I’m simple not interested in the standard console fare. I like games with fat manuals and seven zillion keys I can play for months not kid’s games.

I’m prepared to be amazed by the new consoles but as not one console in the last two decades lived up to their hype and I can’t think of one console game I liked that wasn’t infinitely better on the PC, I’m not holding my breath.

84

Let me put it this way (and I say this without detailed knowledge of the ins and out of console hardware). If the PS3 delivers as promised it will be great. Because every major step into the future is good not only for the original platform, but for the entire computer industry. So if computer hardware designers can learn from console hardware designer (as I’m sure they can), of course that’s a good thing. Yes, we might even see a console hardware manufacturer expand into the computer hardware market, and it’s not given that Intel will exist ten years from now. But even so, that new chip will be redesigned to be used with computers, and the difference between computers and consoles will still be there. And there’s a lot more to gaming performance than the virtual size of the processors.

So I agree with you that it’s quite possible that we’ll see an entirely new GPU design, and that this design could just as well come from the console industry. Though it doesn’t changes the fact that once a GPU has been put into a console it stays there for 5 years, while the similar GPU for the computer is replaced by the next generation of GPUs 6 months later. I can’t exactly remember how long the standard GeForce3 was sold as the leading GPU for computers after the release of Xbox, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t very long.

Well, I’ll probably not be able to buy such a computer (at least not without putting alot of money on the table or wave my magic wand). But processing power isn’t the live or die of neither gaming performance or computers in general. Currently the main bottleneck is the bus architecture. It doesn’t matter how much data you can process, if you can’t bring the data to the units fast enough. And that’s one of the reasons why I prefer to wait and see before I make a judgement on the PS3 and its possible impact on the computer industry.

85

Now you are hitting the nail on the head.
This is one of my pet-peeves with the PC architecture.
Consoles do not have to adhere to that architecture, so don’t need to be limited by this.

86

This is turning into nitpicking. Let’s say there are Intel-apples and Microsoft-apples. The Microsoft-apples have more vitamins in them per mm3, but the Intel-apples have more vitamins in total because they are bigger, and they are also jucier. You can jump up and down all you want and talk about how we should count vitamins per mm3, but I’m only interested in the apple experience. As long as Intel apples are bigger and taste better, I’ll take them over any other.

One more: If Jane could consume energy to live for 30 years and John could consume energy to live for 100 years, but Jane, because of her special design, could consume energy more efficiently and therefore could actually live for 60 years - I’d still prefer to be John.

You’re trying to frame the debate towards a comparison between an actual console and a hypothetical computer, both identical in hardware design. But your hypothetical computer doesn’t exist, unless you claim that it did 3 years ago, which IMO still is irrelevant to the debate.

The truth about hardware quality is this: A console runs on less than half the resolution of a computer (not to mention on a bigger screen with lower refresh rates), has less memory and less processing power. The difference in quality is: Lower quality textures, smaller enviroments, fewer interactive items (NPCs and items). Even though a console can use the resources it has more efficiently, she’s still no match for a standard computer. (The future may prove me wrong, but the future isn’t here). So if you believe otherwise, I would have to ask for a cite.

Also, as I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean that consoles don’t have their own advantages. They do.

See above, and I also wrote: “… one recurring theme among game reviewers is how multi-platform games are toned down in the PC version in order to keep more of the work cross-platform. Lower texture quality, sparser enviroments, jerkish controls. And this is especially true for ports from console to the PC.”

If you really want I can wander off and find out exactly what was improved in the PC version of Halo and some other games, and what could have been improved because they were ports, but was never done, probably due to cost.

Well, I hope the console industry ends up with only one or two players who shares the market with the PC. It’s too costly to develop games for so many platforms. Everybody gets hurt.

87

MMOGing is seriously on the rise. EQ and EQ2 have about 750,000 active accounts between them, and WoW has about 1.5 million. Each of these active accounts equals 3 or 4 purchased new games per year. Each of these active accounts is typically buying every expansion that comes out for these games.

There are dozens more of these games out right now, with some Asian based ones even more successful than our American counterparts. This subscription based gaming segment is only just beginning and I can only guess it will continue to grow. At least for this segment, PC games will never go away, unless you give all the consoles keyboards and internet connections, and make them upgradeable once a year for expansions (wait, that’s a PC).

As an aside, while I believe these games guarantee the survival of PC Gaming, I also think that they ultimately hurt revenues for PC game makers. From my admittedly anecdotal experience, it appears that people that start playing these games stop buying other PC games. For example, I have been playing these games on and off for about 7 years; prior to that I bought a new PC game approximately once a month. Now, outside of subscription costs and expansions, I may buy a standalone game once every 18 months, if that.

88

I prefer the PC, but for different reasons.

Our good TV is on the main floor. We have a Wal-Mart special in our bedroom. Our PC has it’s own room (actually a loft above the bedroom).

Since my Wife might be watching TV, or doing something else in the main room, I would have to use the crappy TV in the bedroom. I don’t like distractions while gaming, and I doubt my Wife would appreciate WWII in our living room (she’s not into gaming). They can sound pretty silly if your not actually playing the game.

I have always gamed on computers. Gaming in front of a TV, sitting on the edge of our bed would just feel weird to me.

My feelings exactly. I don’t think I could immerse myself in a strategy or FPS game while lounging in the living room.

89

I built this $1000 game box in the course of one stormy night last year. It plays all these games just fine, even with bells and whistles.

90

Yeah, but my Xbox cost $150, and, like I said, there was no significant difference in Halo gameplay between the platforms. I’m willing to admit being a bit of a graphics whore, and I still think what the Xbox does on a regular TV is pretty impressive. On an HD display, I really would be more than satisfied. So if somebody says I can buy a system in the future for $300 that will support high-res 16:9 HD, have kick-ass sound, and a nice controller, I’m there. For all my word-processing, etc. I can buy a cheap PC or Mac Mini. I simply prefer the experience of playing games with simple, reasonably intuitive controllers on my couch in front of the TV. When I want to work, I go to the office and sit in front of the desk chair. A lot of people I know feel the same way. I see it as making more sense to buy a decent but inexpensive PC to do what PCs do best, and a decent console to do what consoles do best. Halo on a keyboard was maddening. Ever tried to play Homeworld2? GAH! I don’t want to have to earn a Masters in Homeworld just to have a good time. Any game that requires more buttons on a standard PS2 or Xbox controller is, in my mind, not worth the time. PC game developers show so little discipline when it comes to controls. They play just like they were designed by engineers for engineers, and I hate that.

No, I don’t think PC games are going to die out or anything, but I do think consoles provide a superior gaming experience for those who are, after all, interested in having fun, and not so fixated on massive polygon-counts and the highest possible resolutions (needed, perhaps, to draw attention from a convoluted interface).

91

Can you easily download user-created maps, scenarios, missions, new game models, skins, etc., for consoles? I can (and have done so) for a lot of my PC games; do consoles have a similar capability (or more accurately, is that sort of thing done regularly on the consoles, since I know many of them have the ability to download at least some content.)?

92

I don’t personally subscribe to Xbox Live, but from what I understand, people are doing precisely that. Having a relatively big hard drive in the Xbox facilitates this practice immensely. From what I understand, the Xbox2 will come in flavors, some with, some without hard drives. I think the ones without will still have the ability to use flash-based storage for stuff like that. The Cell processor to be used in the PS3 is pretty much built for distributed computing, and hence the platform is meant for networking. I would assume downloadable content will be a big part of both console’s functionality, as it is to a certain extent with the current Xbox.

93

My first quote was regarding PS3, but due to the vapor nature of that processor, I then talked about the Xbox2, which is a less radical departure from the Power5 architecture it is customized from.

But you finished your post by referring still to the PS3. Not sure if that was just an oversight, but I think it’s important to note that the processing power of the Power5 is not only well established in benchmarks, it is well established in the servers IBM ships with that chip (iseries (AS400), pseries(RS/6000)).
GPU’s
I think you are more correct on this point because the new advanced GPU’s that get created for each generation of consoles, are then adapted to the PC market. But certainly that one component plays catch up rather quickly.

CPU’s
You talk about GPU’s wile I’m talking about CPU’s. Let’s just take the GPU out of the equation because they do catch up pretty quickly.
But the CPU is a different story.
These CPU’s are customized and optimized for games.
As Scoundrel pointed out, this customization allows the console designers to get around efficiency problems that would slow down game performance.
Here are some questions to ponder:
How much do you think it costs for Microsoft to have IBM customize a processor for them?
Do you think they would spend that kind of money if there was no gain?
Why would they switch from the slower Intel architecture to the faster Power architecture if there was no gain?
This will require a rewrite of much code due to the different instruction set, memory model, registers, etc.
Why would they do that when they can just get the next Pentium?

Here is the answer:
Because the only thing they care about is making money, and the only way they can do that is by being aggresive in competing with Sony, and that means they are going to spend the money necessary to create a machine that kick’s ass for games.

If all they truly needed to do was copy the specs for the $600 Dell machine, I guarantee they would do that and spend their hardware R&D money on software and marketing.

94

I was reading up on this plasma burn-in issue. It is indeed a widely-reported problem with game consoles, but it is not limited to game consoles. A long session of watching CNN Headline News or any other broadcast that keeps a static element on the screen for extended periods (say the FX channel, History Channel, or AMC) can cause this problem in minutes, if the conrast is turned up. Pretty disturbing. Makes me think twice about getting a plasma, actually.

95

I may have been somewhat wrong about the increase (at least a atrend apart form inflation), but they certain;y aren’t going down in price like I remember the 8-16 bit systems doing, or the Gameboy. Not counting the commercially poor systems that didn’t fly.

I distinctly recall computers going down in price by at least 1000$ overall over the last 20 years. And I regularly (as if, every few years) buy 600$ machines well into the moderately powerful range.

True. more to the point, I’d liek an X-box, but it just isn’t worth it to me. I hate paying 200-300 buck for something I only can play games on. I don’t need a DVD player though it’s nice. I have other tech for that. And with a PC, it’s worth much more.

This doesn’t make any sense. That’s far too powerful for what it needs to crunch.

I’ve got dollars to bet that companies like EB are getting money straight from Microsoft and Sony in exchange for better space in the store. Obviously they get goood sales on them. But the sames statistics reflect the idea that consumers view PC’s as another platform, with about the right market share.

It’s still the same basic technology, which is much the same as what goes into the PC. They don’t have whole graphics teams making stuff for the console and not the PC. They’d have to invest millions more than they do in order to puch the SotA past PC’s. WHy do they when they can piggyback and optimize?

:dubious: It doesn’t matter. The Bus is still the Bus. Distance per se has little to do with it; it’s the transfer points themselves that count.

96

I may have been somewhat wrong about the increase (at least a atrend apart form inflation), but they certain;y aren’t going down in price like I remember the 8-16 bit systems doing, or the Gameboy. Not counting the commercially poor systems that didn’t fly.

I distinctly recall computers going down in price by at least 1000$ overall over the last 20 years. And I regularly (as if, every few years) buy 600$ machines well into the moderately powerful range.

True. more to the point, I’d like an X-box, but it just isn’t worth it to me. I hate paying 200-300 bucks for something I only can play games on. I don’t need a DVD player though it’s nice. I have other tech for that. And with a PC, it’s worth much more.

This doesn’t make any sense. That’s far too powerful for what it needs to crunch.

I’ve got dollars to bet that companies like EB are getting money straight from Microsoft and Sony in exchange for better space in the store. Obviously they get goood sales on them. But the sames statistics reflect the idea that consumers view PC’s as another platform, with about the right market share. And hey, what do they care? It’s all just another source of income to them.

It’s still the same basic technology, which is much the same as what goes into the PC. They don’t have whole graphics teams making stuff for the console and not the PC. They’d have to invest millions more than they do in order to puch the SotA past PC’s. WHy do they when they can piggyback and optimize?

:dubious: It doesn’t matter. The Bus is still the Bus. Distance per se has little to do with it; it’s the transfer points themselves that count.

All in all, it seems that computers will have a much easier time expanding to take console advantages away than vice versa.

97

DirectX is the de facto gaming API for games on Windows, too.

Console style controllers for the PC have been around for ages.

98

I was thinking about this. If Microsoft (were to come out with a standardized set of instructions and say, “here is a standard for up to 20-30-whatevere buttons”, developers could then just use those instructions and never have to worry about it any more. I had one once, but it never worked right. Then again, maybe they already have done this.

99

I had a Wingman controller (made by Microsoft, no less), and it only worked with about 1/3 the games I bought. Descent III was one of my faves, and the damn thing simply would not work with that game, even though it was supposed to. Plus, every game required essentially a complete reconfiguration of the controller setup, making switching from one to the next quite confusing. I find the standardization of control on the Xbox platform to be more conducive to having fun in a hurry.

DIII had a shitload of bugs, besides, and I see that problem with quite a few PC games. It usually takes about six months before the majority of users can play the games they bought without encountering some showstopping issue with their particular setup, GPU driver, whatever. That is a non-issue with consoles. In fact, I’ve heard u$0ft is thinking of somehow making their Xbox2 a “controlled” Windows platform, sorta along the lines of a Mac, where lack of hardware diversity is (perhaps paradoxically) a plus when it comes to stability.

100

Bandit or anyone taking the position that consoles are just using PC components and therefore perform the same for games, I would ask you the same questions I asked Alien in my previous post.

Please answer whichever question applies more to your specific knowledge:

  1. From a technical perspective, is there any argument you can provide that shows the next generation of x86 processors will be able to match in any way, shape or form, the performance of 3 Power5 custom processors each with dual instructions per cycle (Xbox2).

  2. From a money/business perspective, why would Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, All pay IBM to create CUSTOM Power5 processors for their consoles?