Natively mouse & keyboard support for console. Why not?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Arctikuma

Honorable
Jun 25, 2013
33
0
10,540
Hi all,

I'm a causal PC gamer, mostly interested in shooters. Gaming on a below-average gears with screen lag and input lag is really frustrating. My rank is usually above-average with my low-budget PC. But when I'm using my friends' top-of-the-line PC, I always ends up in top3.

As the result, I'm really fond of the idea of console gaming. Fair fight between all players (apart from the network latency). What I don't understand is why Xbox and Playstation don't support mouse & keyboard natively. I'm sure if they do, many PC FPS enthusiasts will switch to console.
One possible reason I can think of is that introducing new hardwares to console gaming may allow players to gain unfair advantages. IMO, the tracking ability for most modern mice is almost identifical. Console manufacturers can also collaborate with some popular mouse makers and standize a set of mouse that only work with console.

Please share your thoughts.
 
Solution
Epsilon_0EVP
Sort by date Sort by votes
Epsilon_0EVP

Epsilon_0EVP

Honorable
Jun 27, 2012
1,350
1
11,960
The thing is, once you get beyond a certain level, the equipment doesn't really add that much of an advantage. Once you're running at 1080p60Hz, your mouse has a decent sensor, and your keyboard is comfortable for you, you can definitely pay more, but anything higher is for personal comfort mostly, not because it's inherently better.

In the end, arguing that everyone should be forced to the console level for parity is like arguing everyone at the Olympics should run the track events with their feet tied, since then it makes it fair for everyone. It's definitely a way to make things equal, but it lowers the level to the point where it's not particularly interesting, and we're not really testing the limits of what we can do so much as what the machine allows us to do.

This is all without getting into the closedness of the consoles, which now rears its ugly head: consoles are a locked down system, and that is why they don't allow stuff like keyboard and mice. Sure, you can argue it would be nice if I could connect my simple $5 mouse and old office keyboard. But the problem comes when we try to add more complicated stuff. What if I want my RGB mouse to connect to my XBOne? Now I need to install drivers on my console. What if I have a volume rocker on my keyboard? Now I need a new API to handle that input. The closedness of consoles is in the end what prevents them from using anything that isn't an interestingly shaped controller.

"Standardizing" a M/KB setup also adds to the confusion, since the only way they could connect is with USB ports, but that would confuse the average user. People in this forum may be tech-savvy enough to know what to buy to get it to work correctly, but the average console user is sadly not so knowledgeable. Add to that the fact that M/KB is not easy to use on the couch in front of a TV, and now your market is extremely small, making it not worth the development time for a full API and special hardware.

If you do insist on this being the right way to go, there are adapters that translate M/KB input roughly to controller output. I believe they are made for both the PS4 and XBOne. They don't work as precisely, since controllers are inherently less accurately, but it may be something you are interested in.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
A

Arctikuma

Honorable
Jun 25, 2013
33
0
10,540

That's a metaphor from a PC gamers' perspective, playing above the 1080p60Hz bar. Unfortunately, the problem is that most games are playable on PC with specs way under-the-par. If you would allow me to use your metaphor, it's like at the Olympics swimming events, some swim in water; some swim in honey; some swim in glue.
PC is leading the gaming world in terms of graphic quality. But I believe that the interestingness of nowadays game depends comparatively very little on graphics. Again I'm saying from my own experience, I enjoyed playing shooters like Counter-Strike (CS) and Battlefield (BF). BF looks like an amazing eye candy, but, because of that, it's also a resource hog. It's the less resource-demanding stuffs like different game modes, teamwork and gun mechanics that really add so much to BF. And when I play the light-weight CS, I get the same satisfication, the same rush from BF.

who are "we"? Gamers? Developers? Graphic designers? I tend to think that game devs like to code for console rather than PC because of the hardware variety in PC as you mentioned.


Good point :) I never think of that as I share one monitor for PC and consoles.


Try it once, never again. :pfff: (Unless it's recognized by console makers.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Epsilon_0EVP

Epsilon_0EVP

Honorable
Jun 27, 2012
1,350
1
11,960


I actually think the metaphor is completely appropriate from an objective perspective. It's 2015; full HD has been a standard for almost 10 years, and 60Hz has been the standard in video game frame-rates for even longer than that. A game running at 1080p60 should be a minimum for competitive gaming. The fact that PC games allow you to run at even lower settings is a bonus, since it means more people can enjoy the game, regardless of their economical situation. And in terms of inputs, the fact that controllers need to use aim assist to be anywhere near reliable in FPS's really shows that they are indeed crippling all players to achieve "parity".

We also need to consider the market we are talking about. Some people play the game for entertainment, some people play the game for the competition, and that's a very different market. The former should be able to understand that if they run their games at a lower resolution and framerate, they are at a disadvantage, but they understand that getting to the standard level requires more money than they are willing to put into it. On the other hand, people who play more for the competition also understand this, and decide to pay enough to make sure they can run the game at settings that will put them on par with other players. It's the same for every other hobby; you wouldn't show up with a Civic to a classic car show, or to the Tour de France with your old kid-sized bike. If you wish to be competitive in your hobby, there's a financial need you need to take, and the expense to run at the competitive standard (1080p60) is much cheaper than in a lot of other hobbies, so I don't see any reason to complain there.

who are "we"? Gamers? Developers? Graphic designers? I tend to think that game devs like to code for console rather than PC because of the hardware variety in PC as you mentioned.
Click to expand...

By "we", I mean competitors. In the end, competition is about seeing who's best, and who is able to break beyond the limits of what was thought impossible. Perhaps this may sound too grand for video games, but it is the same spirit of competition that drives to work hard at many other events and disciplines.

Good point :) I never think of that as I share one monitor for PC and consoles.
Click to expand...

That's probably the biggest point, too. In the end, as much as some people keep thinking of gaming as something relaxing, and thus needs to be done in a couch, I much prefer gaming at a desk. A proper desk chair is much more ergonomic, and the flexibility in input choice that I get is an excellent advantage.

Try it once, never again. :pfff: (Unless it's recognized by console makers.)
Click to expand...

Yes, but for the reasons outlined here, I doubt we'll ever see official support. It can happen, I guess; the original NES did support M/KB, from what I remember, after all. But I really don't see that being a possibility in the near future.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom