The death of PC games is nigh!

[RaftPeople]

@Pochacco

@Alien

Let’s see if I got it: You do believe that computers in 2007 will be more powerful than console in 2007, but it doesn’t matter because the increasing console user base will not only force the gaming industry to focus more on games for that market, but higher production cost will also force the industry to use less resources on the PC market … (?)

Basically, yes.

I assume you take this position because the Xbox2 is coming out in fall of 05 and PS3 in spring of 06, which means by sometime in 07 PC’s will have caught up?

One way they could possibly catch up in that time, is if the Graphics card mfg’s stuck a cell processor (or 3 or 4 of them) on the card , and that way the x86 processor could offload most of the game work to that processor without worrying about trying to change the x86 architecture (which is not going to happen due to compatability issues).

If your position is that the new Xbox2 and PS3 will be equaled or outmatched by PC’s in processing power (yes there are lots of components and variables but there are some formulas that get used to attempt to make apple to apple comparisons) at time of introduction, I would be very curious as to how you come to that conclusion. What technical details could you provide to support that?

And because you can’t talk about PS3, lets limit the discussion to Xbox2. Which, as a reminder will have 3 Power5’s each at 3ghz and dual instruction per cycle.
Note: I know I know, processing power is not the only factor in creating good games. I keep harping on this issue only because posters have made claims that run counter to my own personal technical knowledge, as well as that of all of the analysts that I have been reading with respect to these new processors, benchmarks on the internet, activity in the supercomputer arena (Power architecture is being chosen over x86 for very obvious performance differences, Itanium does well, but because of dual core, 1 Power5=2 Itaniums, which means it is 1/2 the price).

2nd Note:
I am in the middle of a personal AI project which requires much processing power.
It is currently running on my home PC but it needs much more power to get anything done in this lifetime.
I am going to create a multi-processor system to achieve the performance I need.
I have been investigating the options based on cost and performance, and the PC , while it would be the easiest in terms of my software is already written for that platform, tools, etc. it is at the bottom of the list.
With the new Xbox2 and PS3 my plan is to choose one of those platforms and connect about 10 together, and for a reasonable price ($3,000?) I can get closer to what I need.

I tell you this only so you understand the type of investigation I’ve been doing.
It’s not done, but it includes mapping the most time consuming portion of my software to the other processors, based on the information that is available, and figuring out which one I should use.

[erislover]

@Pochacco

I actually suspect that the real challege to the PC RTS market won’t come from livingroom consoles, but from handhelds. But that’s just a guess.

Man, never thought about it, but the style of the Nintendo DS would be great for RTS. whistles If the PSP shows us what’s possible for power in a handheld, Nintendo could pull off the games like nobody’s business.

[The_Hamster_King]

@RaftPeople

I assume you take this position because the Xbox2 is coming out in fall of 05 and PS3 in spring of 06, which means by sometime in 07 PC’s will have caught up?

Oh, it may very well be the case that PC’s won’t have caught up. I don’t know enough about the different hardware to say. The next gen consoles are very, very powerful.

I suppose my point is the only thing that could switch developer focus back to the PC is if the PC took a big leap forward that made it MUCH more powerful. “Slightly more powerful” doesn’t play out much differently than “slightly less powerful” because the consoles still have the edge in fan base, existing game libraries, marketing budget, and price point.

One of the big topics of debate at this year’s Game Developers Conference was how studios are going to handle content generation on the next gen systems. The problem is that they can move so many more polygons than previous systems that it really requires a restructuring of how teams operate. Until recently teams have tended to be evenly divided between artists and engineers. What we are seeing is the evolution of a new model where artists may outnumber engineers by a factor of 3, 4 or even 5 to 1. In the future how good a game looks is going to depend less upon the power of the platform or the cleverness of the coders and more upon the talent and creativity of the art team.

Oh … and please bear in mind that I haven’t written a line of code for a game since 1997. I’m really not tooled up to debate nitty-gritty technical specs. Good luck with you parallel-processing experiment though … it sounds really cool.

[Alien]

@Gozu

Indeed. That and the natural blurring/smoothing typical of tvs. Thankfully, that’s going to be a thing of the past soon.

Well, I figured you were talking about AA/AF but if you’re referring to the other kind, then consoles have been implementing those just as the PCs did. All the way from Gouraud shading to bloom effect.

Look, Gozu, claiming that consoles are “visually better at launch and in the next 2-3 years” is something you can get away with, because what looks good for one person doesn’t look good for someone else. But claiming that consoles have the graphic filters to keep up with computers is ridiculous.

PS2 was released in 2000. Nobody will disagree that PS2 games looks bad today, compared to any standard PC (or for that matter the latest Xbox games). PS2 games doesn’t look good, period. As for Xbox, it has a modified GeForce3. Since those days the graphic industry has released GeForce 4 and subsequent versions. More about that in a moment. As for Gamecube, I have no personal experience, I can only go by people who say that it’s not as good as Xbox, but not that far behind either.

Now lissen: The GeForce4 and later versions (also ATI) have support for graphic effects that is not on the modified GeForce3 in the Xbox (nor are these available on any of the other consoles). Further, since you often need support in both hardware and software, Xbox does not have support for effects included in the later DirectX versions.

---

Btw, for those interested in the upcoming PS3, IGN is doing a very interesting in-house round-table discussion about it.

part 1: http://ps2.ign.com/articles/596/596036p1.html
part 2: http://ps2.ign.com/articles/596/596670p1.html

[The_Hamster_King]

@erislover

Man, never thought about it, but the style of the Nintendo DS would be great for RTS. whistles If the PSP shows us what’s possible for power in a handheld, Nintendo could pull off the games like nobody’s business.

Exactly. There’s even a model for a console-friendly RTS UI if anyone is willing to iterate on it: Pikmin.

The PSP + $3M + Pikmin-style controls + a real-world military theme = an RTS that would dominate the marketplace. LOL, I’d pitch it myself but I’ve already got a another PSP project green-lighted that I can’t move on until the PS3 game is done.

[RaftPeople]

Pochacco thanks for the feedback. Good luck on your game.

[Gozu]

@Alien

claiming that consoles have the graphic filters to keep up with computers is ridiculous.

Xbox does not have support for effects included in the later DirectX versions.

I’m going to need you to specify what you mean by graphic filters if I am to support my previous assertion.

Now if you really meant important stuff like Pixel Shaders 2.0/3.0 , then absolutely, consoles nowadays come woefully short. But the next gen offerings will all support it. Don’t get me wrong, I never claimed that consoles at all points in time support all directx features (because, really, directx is the only PC platform worth mentionning these days as openGL seems to only be used by ID software…). Obviously they don’t, I’m just saying they’re keeping up.

I’m going to take a look at that IGN feature. It looks interesting, thanks for the links.

[Gorsnak]

@Pochacco

real-time strategy is the one genre where consoles haven’t made significant inroads

Wow. I hadn’t realized that Rome: Total War and IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles were console releases.

Let’s be serious. There are a number of genres where consoles haven’t made significant inroads.

[Gozu]

@Gorsnak

Wow. I hadn’t realized that Rome: Total War and IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles were console releases.

Let’s be serious. There are a number of genres where consoles haven’t made significant inroads.

Indeed, Flight Simulation was never breached by consoles which tend to host more action oriented games such as Ace Combat. I’d like to know what other genres you speak of however.

[Cerri]

Well, Rome: Total War is a combination of turn-based and real-time strategy, but I don’t think I’d call turn-based strat and real-time strat two completely separate genres, say rather two sub-genres of strategy.

I’m personally a pretty hardcore gamer, but I don’t touch our household PS2 at all. I mainly play MMORPGs and Strategy games (both turn-based and real-time), plus web browser games.

Nothing on the console really appeals to me at all, personally.

However, the kids play it all the time, cause they love their Japanese games.

My household is likely a bit unusual in the fact that we’re all gamers. Me, my fiance, his 12 year old daughter, and his 7 year old son.

With PC gaming, we can all play what we want. Our house currently has 3 computers capable of playing anything up to the latest games, plus the PS2/TV. My fiance and I generally sit on our respective computers, and the kids can play the PS2/use the third PC.

While the thought of investing in a computer per household member doesn’t make me bat an eye ( we all use computers for more than just gaming, even the 7 year old), there’s no way in hell I’d buy 4 separate consoles and 4 separate TVs, just so we can all play our preferred games at the same time.

[Abe]

Gozu and a couple others: as has been pointed out, waving your hands and claiming that product XYZ is going to be so great once it comes out is not an argument, it’s simply a lack of solid arguments.

Once the product is released, come back and we’ll continue this discussion. You can then feel free to argue how great the performance and quality of these new gaming boxes are when compared to high end PCs and benchmarked on similar grounds (i.e., resolution, texture size, frame rate, etc.), and we’ll see what the situation actually will be.

Alien has done a very patient job of explaining why PCs are still around as a gaming platform: they offer a deeper and in several ways “better” gaming experience, and of course all the versatile functionalities of personal computers. This, in my opinion, is substantial given the incredibly simple availability of pirated PC software. Suprnova.org may have closed down, but there are still plenty of places to get pirated games from, not to mention physical pirate stores.

So, if there is any one reason why PC games might (notice I say might) dwindle in the future (notice I say in the future) it’s piracy. It will certainly not be due to these abstruse arguments about unavailable and unreleased technology, or skewed quality/performance comparisons between platforms (any such comparison should be on equal footing and between the latest available technology on both sides, and right now that means the PCs are the clear winner).

Now, Gozu, would you be so kind as to expand on this statement:

@Gozu

Now that’s just plain wrong. Consoles significantly outperform PCs in gaming performance at launch and they keep that lead for 2-3 years as mentionned earlier.

What is this assertion based on? And how is it supposed to be a “lead” when a game runs slower than comparable PCs displaying at twice or more the resolution and at double or more the refresh rate? Also, could you provide an example of a platform that outperformed PCs for “2-3 years”? Let’s take the XBox as an example, since it is successful as well as being powerful, and there’s no question that it’s a nice product. The GeForce3 GPU cranks out its graphics. That same GPU was available for PCs throughout the early life of the XBox, and was very quickly left in the dust by newer and more powerful products (though my GeForce3 lasted me until the end of 2004, so no argument that it was good technology).

And also:

Incidentally, consoles are that cheap because the games for them are more expensive and contribute revenue to the console companies. If PC game publishers had an agreement with hardware vendors to share revenue in return for subsidies, you would see dirt cheap power PCs too. Instead we get another trade-off: fully functional computers for a higher price, but slightly cheaper games.

Again, that’s just plain wrong. Both console and pc games cost the same (about $50).

Instead of this useless automatic denial, I invite you to actually go shopping and do a comparison, during which you will notice that only some PC games are priced at or above 50, whereas it's fairly common for console games to bear heftier tags. It's well known that consoles are regularly sold at a loss, even when they are first released at the apex of their pricing. The reason, as already stated and restated and explained, is the licensing deals that enable Sony and Microsoft and the others to push more boxes and recoup losses on hardware through game sales. That contributes to a higher game prices all over the world (the difference where I live is roughly US 20, though another poster noted it was somewhat lower than that where he lives). So yes, Consoles may be cheap, but in addition to getting considerably less than (admittedly rather more expensive) PCs, you also subscribe to a hidden cost for the life of your box (whether you or the game rental place pays is irrelevant). Of course, at the end of the day it all depends if you’re happy with your game box, and I happen to think that the Sony and MS products (less so the Nintendo IMO) are great products. That does not equal “the end of PC games is nigh” by any means.

[Abe]

@Pochacco

Oh, it may very well be the case that PC’s won’t have caught up. I don’t know enough about the different hardware to say. The next gen consoles are very, very powerful.

True, one can only look at an existing trend (that PC hardware either exceeds to begin with or catches up and overtakes console technology) and project it. As an aside, you no doubt remember all the fuss about the PS2 being “weapons grade technology” and “powerful enough for missile guidance systems” and all the rest of that second-generation hype (meaning it may not have originated from Sony).

Heck, Hyper-threading was going to be amazing too, and the GeForce3 GPU was marketed as the advent of “fully cinematic gaming”. All consumer electronics are always the latest and greatest on marketing channels.

I’m sure the PS3 and XBox2 will be great pieces of hardware, but let’s not skin the bear before it’s been shot.

[bump]

I just thought of something…

I’m not much of a console gamer, but I’m right in assuming that the vast majority of console gamers have their Xboxes or PS2s hooked up to their television sets, right?

Why all the hype about console resolution then? Your standard NTSC television will only display 640x400, which kind of makes console resolution arguments pointless.

Or am I wrong, and there’s a vast army of console gamers who have bought more powerful computer monitors for gaming?

[The_Hamster_King]

@bump

I just thought of something…

I’m not much of a console gamer, but I’m right in assuming that the vast majority of console gamers have their Xboxes or PS2s hooked up to their television sets, right?

Why all the hype about console resolution then? Your standard NTSC television will only display 640x400, which kind of makes console resolution arguments pointless.

Or am I wrong, and there’s a vast army of console gamers who have bought more powerful computer monitors for gaming?

Existing consoles do support HDTV resolution, although most current games aren’t programmed to take advantage of it. With the next generation of consoles Sony & Microsoft will probably require progressive scan support from all new games as part of the approval process.

[Gozu]

I’d just like to add the Pochacco’s comment about resolution that Microsoft has already made public that they will make it mandatory for developpers to offer at least 720p (1280x720). It would be shocking if Sony and Nintendo didn’t follow suit.

[Gozu]

Abe, I haven’t forgotten you

@Abe

Gozu and a couple others: as has been pointed out, waving your hands and claiming that product XYZ is going to be so great once it comes out is not an argument, it’s simply a lack of solid arguments.
Once the product is released, come back and we’ll continue this discussion. You can then feel free to argue how great the performance and quality of these new gaming boxes are when compared to high end PCs and benchmarked on similar grounds (i.e., resolution, texture size, frame rate, etc.), and we’ll see what the situation actually will be.

By the time it’s released, we’ll both have forgotten all about this thread. I know I will. But if you remember and revive it, make sure to email me and let me know so I can participate .

Alien has done a very patient job of explaining why PCs are still around as a gaming platform: they offer a deeper and in several ways “better” gaming experience, and of course all the versatile functionalities of personal computers. This, in my opinion, is substantial given the incredibly simple availability of pirated PC software. Suprnova.org may have closed down, but there are still plenty of places to get pirated games from, not to mention physical pirate stores.

I’m not sure what pirated software has to do with anything. In any case, you can mod all 3 current consoles and pirate to your heart’s content on them as well.

So, if there is any one reason why PC games might (notice I say might) dwindle in the future (notice I say in the future) it’s piracy. It will certainly not be due to these abstruse arguments about unavailable and unreleased technology, or skewed quality/performance comparisons between platforms (any such comparison should be on equal footing and between the latest available technology on both sides, and right now that means the PCs are the clear winner).

I commented on piracy earlier. Whether piracy is killing pc gaming is worthy of its own debate . If you start a thread in the subject, you can count me in. But right now, I’m going to ignore it.

Now, Gozu, would you be so kind as to expand on this statement:
What is this assertion based on? And how is it supposed to be a “lead” when a game runs slower than comparable PCs displaying at twice or more the resolution and at double or more the refresh rate? Also, could you provide an example of a platform that outperformed PCs for “2-3 years”? Let’s take the XBox as an example, since it is successful as well as being powerful, and there’s no question that it’s a nice product. The GeForce3 GPU cranks out its graphics. That same GPU was available for PCs throughout the early life of the XBox, and was very quickly left in the dust by newer and more powerful products (though my GeForce3 lasted me until the end of 2004, so no argument that it was good technology).

Someone else said that and I addressed it earlier in the thread. I’d just be repeating myself.

And also:
Instead of this useless automatic denial, I invite you to actually go shopping and do a comparison, during which you will notice that only some PC games are priced at or above 50, whereas it's fairly common for console games to bear heftier tags. It's well known that consoles are regularly sold at a loss, even when they are first released at the apex of their pricing. The reason, as already stated and restated and explained, is the licensing deals that enable Sony and Microsoft and the others to push more boxes and recoup losses on hardware through game sales. That contributes to a higher game prices all over the world (the difference where I live is roughly US 20, though another poster noted it was somewhat lower than that where he lives). So yes, Consoles may be cheap, but in addition to getting considerably less than (admittedly rather more expensive) PCs, you also subscribe to a hidden cost for the life of your box (whether you or the game rental place pays is irrelevant).

I’m surprised nobody backed me up on this yet. Anyways, in the U.S, PC and console games cost the same. Period. I mean, come on, I’ve been buying games for years and years. I buy games for both platforms and that’s just the way it is. Let me pick 1 random game for each platform. Resident Evil 4 for the gamecube costs $50, God of War for PS2 costs $50, Jade Empire for Xbox costs $50 and Swat 4 for the PC costs $50. There. Go check gamestop.com if you don’t believe me. The last time I noticed console games costing more than PC games was back when the N64 was alive (it used carts, more expensive to manufacture than CDs/DVDs). Now maybe in your country, things are different. I know that back in the day, when I lived in Spain, PC and console games also cost the same (around 7500-8000 ptas) but that’s neither here nor there.

Of course, at the end of the day it all depends if you’re happy with your game box, and I happen to think that the Sony and MS products (less so the Nintendo IMO) are great products. That does not equal “the end of PC games is nigh” by any means.

Nobody said that equalled anything.

[Abe]

@Gozu

I’m not sure what pirated software has to do with anything. In any case, you can mod all 3 current consoles and pirate to your heart’s content on them as well.

It’s much easier for the average user to obtain pirated PC titles and get them to work. On game consoles, this is much harder to do (by design, obviously, but also because of other issues such as connectivity, PC based file sharing software, burning/ripping software and capability, etc). Piracy isn’t killing gaming, neither PC nor console. But it certainly puts a dent in the business, and in fact Valve made sure that Steam could trap users who BitTorrented Half Life 2, and then went after them – first time I hear of such a direct effort.

… And how is it supposed to be a “lead” when a game runs slower than comparable PCs displaying at twice or more the resolution and at double or more the refresh rate? …

Someone else said that and I addressed it earlier in the thread. I’d just be repeating myself.

I read your take, I found it unconvincing and asked for further support. The lead you cite is due to factors such as the significantly higher average resolutions, texture size, frame rate etc. on most PC gaming versus consoles.

I’m surprised nobody backed me up on this yet. Anyways, in the U.S, PC and console games cost the same. Period. I mean, come on, I’ve been buying games for years and years. I buy games for both platforms and that’s just the way it is. Let me pick 1 random game for each platform. Resident Evil 4 for the gamecube costs $50, God of War for PS2 costs $50, Jade Empire for Xbox costs $50 and Swat 4 for the PC costs $50. There. Go check gamestop.com if you don’t believe me. The last time I noticed console games costing more than PC games was back when the N64 was alive (it used carts, more expensive to manufacture than CDs/DVDs). Now maybe in your country, things are different. I know that back in the day, when I lived in Spain, PC and console games also cost the same (around 7500-8000 ptas) but that’s neither here nor there.

Here’s a brief comparison I did for games that exist both on PCs and at least one game console. I used Gamespot’s price check service, which connects to EB Games, or, failing that, to other resources on the net, but all American. I randomly selected games from Gamespot, and from a list of games released in the last 3 years with a rating of 9+. Not the most scientific methodology, but it should be good for a rough idea.

GAME TITLE____________PC____________CONSOLE________DIFFERENCE

Doom 3…$39.99…$49.99 (XBox)…$10
GTA San Andreas…$49.99…$49.99 (PS2)…none
SplinterCellChaosTheo.$49.99…$49.99 (Xbox)…none
Lego Star Wars…$29.99…$39.99 (PS2)…$10
KOTOR 2 …$49.99…$49.99 (Xbox)…none
Madden NFL 2005…$19.99…$29.99 (PS2)…$10
Halo…$19.99…$29.99 (Xbox)…$10

AVERAGE…$37.13…$42.85…$5.72
***average…$35.70…$42.85…$7.15

*** means I think the quoted PC price may be wrong. I went shopping for KOTOR2 at Christmas in NYC and picked up the PC version for 29.99 or 39.99, I can’t remember which (I never pay $50 or more for a game, I consider that excessive). The ***Average assumes a price of 39.99 for KOTOR2, which is the maximum I ever pay.

Well, I think you will agree that this sample seems to support my earlier statement. Not all PC games are cheaper, but on average there is a difference even in the US. Elsewhere, as has been discussed, that difference appears to be substantially greater.

That does not equal “the end of PC games is nigh” by any means.

Nobody said that equalled anything.

You could have fooled me with your OP and unwarranted conclusions about PC gaming being eclipsed, moribund, on the way out, inherently inferior to consoles, etc.!

[Gozu]

@Abe

It’s much easier for the average user to obtain pirated PC titles and get them to work. On game consoles, this is much harder to do (by design, obviously, but also because of other issues such as connectivity, PC based file sharing software, burning/ripping software and capability, etc). Piracy isn’t killing gaming, neither PC nor console. But it certainly puts a dent in the business, and in fact Valve made sure that Steam could trap users who BitTorrented Half Life 2, and then went after them – first time I hear of such a direct effort.

Yes, it’s definitely easier for the average PC user to get copies to work on his PC. Modchips cost money and require soldering and stuff.

I read your take, I found it unconvincing and asked for further support. The lead you cite is due to factors such as the significantly higher average resolutions, texture size, frame rate etc. on most PC gaming versus consoles.

Well, i’m afraid I can’t be anymore convincing than that. Find me a 1994 racing game for the pc that looked better than ridge racer for PSX and I might reconsider. I’ll even give you up to the first trimester of 1995 because i’m a generous man.

Here’s a brief comparison I did for games that exist both on PCs and at least one game console. I used Gamespot’s price check service, which connects to EB Games, or, failing that, to other resources on the net, but all American. I randomly selected games from Gamespot, and from a list of games released in the last 3 years with a rating of 9+. Not the most scientific methodology, but it should be good for a rough idea.

GAME TITLE____________PC____________CONSOLE________DIFFERENCE

Doom 3…$39.99…$49.99 (XBox)…$10
GTA San Andreas…$49.99…$49.99 (PS2)…none
SplinterCellChaosTheo.$49.99…$49.99 (Xbox)…none
Lego Star Wars…$29.99…$39.99 (PS2)…$10
KOTOR 2 …$49.99…$49.99 (Xbox)…none
Madden NFL 2005…$19.99…$29.99 (PS2)…$10
Halo…$19.99…$29.99 (Xbox)…$10

AVERAGE…$37.13…$42.85…$5.72
***average…$35.70…$42.85…$7.15

*** means I think the quoted PC price may be wrong. I went shopping for KOTOR2 at Christmas in NYC and picked up the PC version for 29.99 or 39.99, I can’t remember which (I never pay $50 or more for a game, I consider that excessive). The ***Average assumes a price of 39.99 for KOTOR2, which is the maximum I ever pay.

Well, I think you will agree that this sample seems to support my earlier statement.

No, it doesn’t support your statement. You picked a flawed sample. You must compare prices of games AT LAUNCH (before retailers start slashing prices the way they see fit) and there is no reason to only pick multiplatform games. I can find you just as many games where the console version is cheaper by the way.
Not all PC games are cheaper, but on average there is a difference even in the US. Elsewhere, as has been discussed, that difference appears to be substantially greater.

You could have fooled me with your OP and unwarranted conclusions about PC gaming being eclipsed and inherently inferior to consoles, etc.!

I said PC gaming WOULD decline and start dying after the next gen consoles come out by autumn of next year and I believe my conclusions were warranted. I do not believe I uttered the words “PCs are inherently inferior to consoles”. If anything, I’m the less biased one because I own and play on all 4 platforms and will continue doing so in the predictable future. Remember, I bought a $900 monitor and a $350+ graphic card for my PC. Would I do that if I thought PCs were “inherently inferior to consoles” ?

[squeegee]

@Pochacco

Existing consoles do support HDTV resolution, although most current games aren’t programmed to take advantage of it. With the next generation of consoles Sony & Microsoft will probably require progressive scan support from all new games as part of the approval process.

Actually, almost all XBOX games support 480p (720x480 progressive scan). A very few also support 720p or 1080i. See here for a list.

[Gozu]

@squeegee

Actually, almost all XBOX games support 480p (720x480 progressive scan). A very few also support 720p or 1080i. See here for a list.

I know for a fact that 480p means 640x480 . Are you sure it can also mean 720x480?
If that is the case, then this naming system is definitely vague and unsatisfying.