PDA

View Full Version : Do you think gaming consoles will take over PC gaming?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Kain
11-27-03, 05:52 AM
Do you think gaming consoles will take over PC gaming in the future?

Edge
11-27-03, 06:15 AM
Probably not, there will always be the hardcore dedicated PC croud. Though if the next series of consoles is fully HDTV compatable, that would eliminate the current advantage PC games have of higher resolution. RTS games alone would probably keep PC gaming alive.

SH64
11-27-03, 06:19 AM
No . thats unlikly to happen even in the far future ... the PC gaming is tied up with the computer revolution .. the more it advance the more advance for the PC gaming .
actully the PC gaming is the mirror for the new Tech. , thats why hardware benchmarks relay on gaming performance to show how advanced they became.

i see no takeovers since both console & PC have thier own fans . :)

MUYA
11-27-03, 06:29 AM
No way! Hehehe PC parts will always be more powerful than console parts.
The PC games will always most certainly have better graphics and AI and stuff because the PC hardware just gets better and better every year! We just need M$ to tighten up its OS's ;) Even then I still love winXP! sorry *nix zealots!

The hardware in PCs is always something that is diluted down from applications the PC is needed for. Ie supercomputers to study the smashing of atomic particles, and then rendering of CGI for films, or to study proteins closely etc etc etc. The numbercrunching CPU's tech get diluted down to desktop PCs, the rendering tech gets implemented into GPUS etc. That changes every year when newer tech gets diluted down to the desktop PC. On the console, the hardware remains constant and is of course outdated in a year or so etc. That way newer effects, AI methods and stuff get implemented on PC games than on console games etc. So there is that quality about PC games. or something to that effect....hmmm just my ramblings ;)


MUYA

Kain
11-27-03, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by MUYA
No way! Hehehe PC parts will always be more powerful than console parts.
The PC games will always most certainly have better graphics and AI and stuff because the PC hardware just gets better and better every year! We just need M$ to tighten up its OS's ;) Even then I still love winXP! sorry *nix zealots!

The hardware in PCs is always something that is diluted down from applications the PC is needed for. Ie supercomputers to study the smashing of atomic particles, and then rendering of CGI for films, or to study proteins closely etc etc etc. The numbercrunching CPU's tech get diluted down to desktop PCs, the rendering tech gets implemented into GPUS etc. That changes every year when newer tech gets diluted down to the desktop PC. On the console, the hardware remains constant and is of course outdated in a year or so etc. That way newer effects, AI methods and stuff get implemented on PC games than on console games etc. So there is that quality about PC games. or something to that effect....hmmm just my ramblings ;)


MUYA Well, since the hardware in consoles always stays the same, programmers can easily optimize the game for that console thus providing better performance. With PCs, they can't do that because there are so many combinations of hardware in PCs. That is why gaming consoles, even though less powerful than a PC, provide very similar levels of graphics compared to the PC version.

Kain
11-27-03, 06:41 AM
By the way, don't forget that Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 are coming to the Xbox. And how fast is the processor in the Xbox? 733MHz! This proves it is much easier to optimize for gaming consoles.

sytaylor
11-27-03, 06:56 AM
Loaded question.. in terms of sales they already have, long since in fact. In terms of wiping out the pc altogether thats unlikley, the way the xbox is converging towards a pc, and the pc is going a bet set top box'ish itself.. They're more likley to meet in the middle somewhere.

Kain
11-27-03, 07:02 AM
I guess I stated the question wrong. I should have used "overtake" instead of "take over."

Smokey
11-27-03, 09:11 AM
No, I've still got atleast another 50yrs of good pc gaming left in me :p

NAZCA M12
11-27-03, 10:04 AM
No way in Hell :mad: They can only reach a very good level of performance when they are brand new (remember PS2, Xbox in their early days), then are doomed for the next 4-5 years, a time that the parent company will have to stick with them. PC's on the other hand keep evolving. One thing i never had a problem with the Deus Ex 2 demo was performance in the graphics department. See if a ****ing PIII-700 + GF3 +... (you know the rest) can match a PC like the one i have for example. Overtake? Meh

fasedww
11-28-03, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by NAZCA M12
No way in Hell :mad: They can only reach a very good level of performance when they are brand new (remember PS2, Xbox in their early days), then are doomed for the next 4-5 years, a time that the parent company will have to stick with them. PC's on the other hand keep evolving. One thing i never had a problem with the Deus Ex 2 demo was performance in the graphics department. See if a ****ing PIII-700 + GF3 +... (you know the rest) can match a PC like the one i have for example. Overtake? Meh Whats your buss at 1/1 ratio for memory too", How about your cpu cooling and what voltage you got going to your cpu. Just curios you know how it is'?:D

DaveW
11-28-03, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Kain
By the way, don't forget that Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 are coming to the Xbox. And how fast is the processor in the Xbox? 733MHz! This proves it is much easier to optimize for gaming consoles.

A big part of that optimization is running it at 640x480 and fixing the frame rate at 30 fps. The X-box is basically a PC. It is helped by the fact that there are less platform layers between the game and the hardware, but this is something that is supposed to be addressed on the PC with DirectX 10.

CaptNKILL
11-28-03, 11:33 AM
Sadly, I voted yes.....

I think its inevitible..... I dont have any numbers here to back this up, but im willing to bet that console game sales are 5-10x greater than PC games. Consoles are toys, PCs are are computers. Im generalizing quite a bit here, but Im willing to bet that the average 8-16 year old would rather play a video game than have to screw around with a computer.

Sure there will always (I use the term always loosely) be a PC and there will always be someone making games for it.... but as long as consoles are selling many MANY more games, PC gaming will lose focus. As consoles get more powerfull, PCs are going to lose a lot of their edge.

The main thing that PCs have going for them is power and flexibility. If a console gets powerfull enough to visually please developers (like the PS2 and XBox), then the PC isnt going to have much of an advantage (since its obviously much cheaper and quicker to develope for a console as well).

PCs will always have the flexibility advantage, but most gamers dont give a rats ass about that.

/pessimism off ;)

or maybe all the consoles will die and gaming will be strictly for PCs :D

CaptNKILL
11-28-03, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by NAZCA M12
No way in Hell :mad: They can only reach a very good level of performance when they are brand new (remember PS2, Xbox in their early days), then are doomed for the next 4-5 years, a time that the parent company will have to stick with them. PC's on the other hand keep evolving. One thing i never had a problem with the Deus Ex 2 demo was performance in the graphics department. See if a ****ing PIII-700 + GF3 +... (you know the rest) can match a PC like the one i have for example. Overtake? Meh
Yeah, but how much did your PC cost? im guessing well over $1000......

XBox costs what, $200? $300?

Edge
11-28-03, 12:42 PM
That's the problem: PCs cost much more and require costly upgrades to keep "up-to-date". When the Xbox came out, it had godly performence compaired to PCs of even double the price, because a Geforce 3 card alone cost as much as an Xbox back then, while the Xbox had a Geforce 3 card built in. Sure, you could get a PC back then that performed equally to games that were on both PC and Xbox like Morrowind, but it would've cost around 1,500 at the time (if my memory about Morrowind performence is correct). Also, by the time the console is half-way through it's life-cycle, you'll usually need to upgrade your PC. I upgraded my CPU about half a year after the Xbox came out, and now it's only 200 mhz away from being below the minimum requirement for many games. Unless you had a Geforce 3 card back when the Xbox was released, you'll have had to upgrade it by now to play some of the newer games (since many are now requiring pixel shaders). And if you get some of the very efficiently made consoles compaired to a PC ($100 Gamecube vs. $1000 PC), the difference seems so minimal that even the most hardened of PC gamers must admit that PCs are not cost efficient for games. Sure, Halo 2 may not look quite as good as Doom 3, but it's running on a platform that costs 1/5th as much as a high-end PC.

IF the next generation of consoles can offer high-resolution and hardware that won't hold back graphics 3 years after it's release, the PC would have a tough fight ahead of it. After all, look at surround sound: previously surround sound games were a huge deal and only availible on a high-end PC, but now virtually every Xbox game supports surround sound. But I'm kinda scared of DirectX10/Longhorn, it almost sounds like they're making PCs more console-ish, and consoles are becoming more like PCs. Perhaps gaming in the future will not consist of PC vs. Console, but a hybrid of both into a single entertainment platform.

vampireuk
11-28-03, 12:55 PM
The thing about consoles is that they cannot be upgraded though. Once a console is out that's it, the graphics won't get any better. Meanwhile more pc componants come out that smash what the console has into the ground.

jAkUp
11-28-03, 01:19 PM
Well, I've been PC gaming for at least 10 years, I can still remember playing Doom on my 386 20Mhz, and it chugged like hell. hehe.

What is saddening to me is througout the years, it seems as if there has been less and less "good" games. And more and more console ports. Back then there was really no such thing as console ports, and if there was, it was ported over to the console second. Sort of like Max Payne 2.

Now we are seeing pc games that are unoptimized, untested, and are a patch up job basically. The cost of making games has gotten to such a large amount, mom and pops companies don't have the time and money to take a long time on a game. Deadlines have to be met. Thankfully Valve and ID are self funded companies, so they can take all the time to their hearts desire.

I can almost bet that PCGaming is really gonna pick up after Half-Life 2 and Doom3 are released. That will push the industry, and give a new developers a few new engines to work with. The new developers can concentrate on a great game, rather than a kickass engine.

D.K.Tronics
11-28-03, 01:27 PM
Consoles are sold at a loss, a big loss.
So you can't go comparing PC to console prices.
How much would you bet, if you could buy the console for what it actually costs to make, and compare that to what it costs a PC to make, there would be such a big difference ?

And don't include a monitor in that price, after all, consoles don't come with TV's.

Another thing, PC developers don't need high priced development licenses, to program for the PC. The profit may not be as big, but you don't need to pay any of the 3 companies your license fee.


By the way, don't forget that Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 are coming to the Xbox. And how fast is the processor in the Xbox? 733MHz! This proves it is much easier to optimize for gaming consoles.

That doesn't prove anything.
And it certainly doesn't prove that you are going to get a good game, let alone an experience that comes close to a PC.
It may be a crap port, nobody knows. But I know what platform I'd rather play it on.
Consoles also completely suck at fps games, and don't even come close to the perfection of mouse/keyboard.

I'm not against consoles, I own all 3, plus a loft full of retro consoles.

But I get the impression that some of you are attacking the PC, for no apparent reason

Edge
11-28-03, 02:53 PM
Consoles are sold at a loss, a big loss.
So you can't go comparing PC to console prices.

They're perfectly compairable. When any CUSTOMER buys something, it doesn't matter how much it costs the factories to make it or how much markup there is at retail, the only thing that matters is how much YOU pay for it. Yes, consoles are sold at a loss, so that they can make up for it with game sales. With PCs, you have every hardware manufacturer and retailer trying to rip you off, but with consoles they're willing to short themselves some money just to get it into your hands. Until consoles are sold at above cost, they will be much more cost-efficient (although the Gamecube has always been sold at or slightly above cost). Though even back when the Xbox was released, it still only cost them $420 or so to make, which was about half of a compairable PC.

And don't include a monitor in that price, after all, consoles don't come with TV's.

I don't know about other people, but I certainly wasn't including a monitor in the price. But when a high-end videocard costs $500, and a mid-range one costing as much as a console, you really don't have to include the monitor cost to still have a big gap between PC and console prices.

And it certainly doesn't prove that you are going to get a good game, let alone an experience that comes close to a PC.

Depends on your definition of experience. Mods add a lot to a game, no doubt, however now there are some console games that have downloadable levels, extra game modes, and even one up the PC by offering voice-chat as a standard feature in online games (a capability which is almost always ignored in PC games). Also, I find the pad works fine for many games, and I actually don't mind using it for FPS games. Sure, it's not as precise, but I tend to not be a big fan of FPS games that rely more on your aiming skills then anything else. As far as graphics go, they may add to the experience, but they should always be second to gameplay.

The thing about consoles is that they cannot be upgraded though. Once a console is out that's it, the graphics won't get any better. Meanwhile more pc componants come out that smash what the console has into the ground.

And meanwhile, those upgrades cost a pretty penny. Oh sure, after a few years console graphics won't be able to match up to PC graphics, but by the time the margin is very wide a NEW console is released, which visually is better then any PC at the time is capable of. And actually, they have a lot of time to optimise more for the console as time goes on. That's the big difference: PCs rely on upgraded hardware to produce prettier graphics, while consoles rely on optimised code and finding more and more tricks to pull with the hardware. I never thought that "pixel shader-like" water effects or full shadowing would be possible on a system as outdated and poorly designed as the PS2, but recently I've found a few games that accomplish that. Or look at the huge jump between Halo 1 and Halo 2: the first game looked worse then UT2003, but the second almost looks as good as Doom 3. And look at the HUGE difference between first generation PS2 games and the latest generation. On a single PC, you'll usually find that current games will run fine, but then as games get better your framerate gets worse and worse until you finally have to upgrade, and meanwhile console games are being optimised for hardware that is worse then your PCs, but looks far prettier.

Though the gap is also shortening. Back when PS1 was first released, it was the equivalent to a VERY high end PC, but by the middle of it's life-span it had already been made greatly outdated graphicly. The Xbox on the other hand is past it's middle-point, and is still able to keep up with some major PC games. How long will it take the next generation of consoles to get outdated?

-=DVS=-
11-28-03, 04:25 PM
Well hopefully no , but they could , they only need to add keyboard , Harddrive for updates , support for not only TV but regular desktop monitor or LCD , for better picture , add lazer mouse by default and we have a winner ;) could play all kind of games then.

No more driver bugs , or windows crashes :D consoles are more stable moustly.

CaptNKILL
11-28-03, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by OWA
The thing that concerns me is that the PC shelf space seems to be getting smaller and smaller. In the past, CompUSA was the lone holdout in my area..meaning, they had far more PC games than console games than any other place. Now that CompUSA is turning into another Best Buy type store, the PC shelves have been consolidated quite a bit and consoles have almost as much shelf space as the PCs. The consoles dominate the computer (game) stores at the mall so much now I don't even bother going to them anymore.

So, I guess I'm worried about a domino effect. The consoles already sell a lot more games, now we have the shelf space for PCs being reduced even more which in turn will probably mean less sales on the PC side (or harder to find non-top 20 games) which will then cause the stores to reduce the shelf space further...etc. From that I see people having to get most of their games online or worse having to use something like steam to get their game (and personally, I really don't like the business model steam is pushing).

Of course, I've worried about this for a few years now but until now, there was always the fall back of a store like CompUSA. Now that it appears to be changing as well, I guess my paranoia has gone up a bit.
The shelf got smaller because most games use small boxes now..... :D

StealthHawk
11-28-03, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Edge
Though the gap is also shortening. Back when PS1 was first released, it was the equivalent to a VERY high end PC, but by the middle of it's life-span it had already been made greatly outdated graphicly. The Xbox on the other hand is past it's middle-point, and is still able to keep up with some major PC games. How long will it take the next generation of consoles to get outdated?

I argue that PC software is just falling farther and farther behind what the hardware is capable of. While, as you pointed out, console games do get better throughout the lifetime of the console as programmers become more accustomed to the platform.

How many games released are actually designed around DX8 and don't just use DX8 for some novelty features(better looking water)? 3GHz CPUs have been out for over a year now and games' minimum system requirements are still usually between 1-2GHz. Percentage-wise, we are seeing minimum CPU requirements inline with the past. When 200MHz was top of the line ~100MHz was the system requirement. Now we have ~1.5GHz being a system requirement. Same percentage, but the difference in raw power is a lot greater and more significant.

We all should be able to agree that theoretically PCs will always be leaps and bounds ahead of consoles. In practice though, that might not be the case. Even if consoles and PCs both sustain a linear increase in power over time, the console will close the gap betwen the PC since the PC will always have software that lags behind the hardware.

Many people have already noted that instead of having PC to console ports, lots of games these days are console to PC ports. Even PC game publishers like Blizzard are making some console exclusive games like StarCraft Ghost. Which is ridiculous since a PC port should be easy considering the game is coming out on Xbox. This trend of console first will probably continue. However, this isn't the same thing as saying PC gaming will die.

Experts have been predicting the death of the PC as a gaming platform, but it is still thriving. It will continue to thrive for some time. PC enthusiasts will increasingly become the most likely PC gamers. Casual PC gamers(who play retail games) will more or less die out.

PenguinJim
11-28-03, 09:42 PM
Meh. The Megadrive was gonna spell the end of PC gaming. So was the SNES. And the Amiga and Atari ST (and STE and Falcon). And the Amiga 600 and 1200 and, well, everything. Since about 1993 EVERYTHING has spelled competition for the PC. Nothing has won. To be honest, I don't see anything spelling the end for the PC ever, although recent developments (well, since 2001 :D) have indicated the evolution of the PC into something quieter and more media-integrated. I spelled all that while drunk yay me :D.

PenguinJim
11-28-03, 10:35 PM
Now that I think about it, anyone remember that MegaPC? It had a Megadrive built in. Even the SNES was old news by then (although this was pre-3DO and Jaguar by a long shot), but I wasn't a PC-head back then, so I remember little else than that it was released.

StealthHawk
11-29-03, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by PenguinJim
Meh. The Megadrive was gonna spell the end of PC gaming. So was the SNES. And the Amiga and Atari ST (and STE and Falcon). And the Amiga 600 and 1200 and, well, everything. Since about 1993 EVERYTHING has spelled competition for the PC. Nothing has won. To be honest, I don't see anything spelling the end for the PC ever, although recent developments (well, since 2001 :D) have indicated the evolution of the PC into something quieter and more media-integrated. I spelled all that while drunk yay me :D.

I don't think the SNES was more powerful than the PC though. I still remember the SNES port of Doom. It was blockier, more pixelated, and ran slower than the PC version of Doom which had been released years earlier.

From what I know the PSX and N64 gave the PC a serious run for its money before 3d acceleration took off, after that the PC was easily ahead. But systems like Dreamcast, PS2, XBox, and GC can still give the PC a run for its money with certain games even today.