Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is this the end of Console gaming?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 8, 2007 11:33:37 AM

Hey there
im writeing this post to get the idears of the many and knowing of the gameing and IT world.
My friend and i are debating about the fact that PC's will be dominating the furture of up comeing games.

My argument is this,
I beleave that even though the Xbox360 and PS3 have just been relesed, that they are alredy Obsolete technology. Reason cause of no DirectX 10 capability.
The 360 is a non compliant DirectX 10 system wich makes it no better then an overpriced Nvidia 7900GT.
So is this to say that PC's will dominate?
The way i see it, a video card is much like buying a console, that they only have one function that is playing games.
Computers are not in the same catagory as consoles because thay do more then just play games. By now we live in a time where a pc is just like any other aplience in your house.
When buying a 360 or PS3 it is like buying a high end vieo card such as the 8800GTX wich is far more powerful then any console to date.
And with the high rise of interest in home media centers has pushed the way of PC's being so "P" as in personal, too more of a "HC" home computer.
So please, feal free too reply with your own thoughts and corrections, i realy would like to hear what others say about this.

More about : end console gaming

March 8, 2007 12:35:06 PM

As much as i'd like to see consoles destroyed (STOP THE CRAPPY CONSOLE PORTS!), I don't think consoles will ever end anytime soon, consoles haven't changed much, they will also be part of the media center, in one way or another.

lol, this pos reminds me of the christmas time editorials calling for the possible doom of PC gaming, occured every year since time immemorial, glad to see the flip side...
March 8, 2007 1:22:07 PM

Actually most ppl seem to debate whether pc gaming is dyeing not the opposite. :)  Games consoles are far from dye for a number of reasons. here are a few:

-game consoles are more fun to play on then pc's when it comes to any type of game except for fps and strategy. That means rpgs, sports games, combat gmaes whatever

-games do not need to be installed and you dont need to worry about having enough HDD space on a console

-ALL games for a console work on the console whereas not all games work on all pc's and they definately dont always work on max settings.

- new revolutionary gameplay like the that offered by the Wii is comming out which is not available on pc

-game consoles are easy to use and user friendly and they dont need takin care of like pc's (anti-virus, disk defragment etc)

-the main advantage of game consoles is perhaps that they are MUCH CHEAPER not more expensive. You said just get a 8800GTX but do you know how much they cost?? More than a PS3 nevermind the xbox and nintendo? And dont forget its not only the gfx card you need, ram, cpu etc...

-game consoles are played on the TV while chilling out on a sofa not infront of a computer screen

-ALso another very important point is that consoles are doing more and more of what pc's usually did. You can play games online, surf the internet, watch films, store clips songs and loads of other stuff.

Now dont get me wrong Im not saying pc gaming is dyeing, in fact I am a pc gamer not a console gamer but Im just showing you why consoles are far from dyeing
Related resources
March 8, 2007 2:49:32 PM

For the next 10 years, consoles will be a dominant segment in gaming. The casual gamer segment is massive. Look at the Wii success.

However, once we get to the state of a true media hub in the home (10 years +) the systems will converge - IMO.

Oh, and you can kiss blockbuster and netflix goodbye... maybe even movies on any type of disc format.

For the time being, both will exist as there are plenty of profits in each industry. The thing that PC gaming has going for it... discretionary income is rising in the US. Look at the growth of high-end PC gaming companies... people have extra cash to blow on vanity rigs.
March 8, 2007 4:41:43 PM

umm... no.

First off Direct X is an API used to interface unknown hardware capabilities with Windows. Direct X 10 is specifically for Windows Vista ONLY. You do not NEED an API when you have static hardware configurations like consoles have. An Xbox is and Xbox is an Xbox. You program for one, they all work.

Then there is the stability difference. Consoles are largely more stable than PCs again due to static hardware configurations. A lot of people don't want to have to fight their PC to play games.

Then there is the fact that they quite simply cater to a different market segment. Now there is some serious overlap with the PC market segment but that does not change the fact that consoles sell very well as do their games.
March 8, 2007 5:13:41 PM

I remember a long time ago one of the first pc games I tried to play. I got some error...I don't remember...something like "Not enought Extended memory." So, I had to learn about extended memory.

Most of what I know about computers began with trying to get computer games to work.

That's the problem with PC games. You can just pop them in and expect them to work. And you have to remember most people don't have the knowlege to deal with the kinds of problems that arise.


However, I do agree that the PC is the best platform because almost EVERYONE has a PC. If you go to Asian countries or 3rd world countries you'll find Internet Cafe's where people are playing PC games. Counter-Strike is the most popular game in the world.

I think as 3d graphics become more affordable and the rest of the world starts buying more modern PC's then PC games will dominate. (If they can manage the pirating problems and ease of use issues)

I think the PC would be a more popular gaming platform now if all the cool gaming related things were easier to use.

For example, to fix my BF2142 issues I had to search through help forums and figure out that I need to download new dual core cpu drivers.

Another example, the issues I'm having with getting my 8800GTS to play games on Vista are obsurdly technical.
March 8, 2007 6:06:39 PM

Actually... World of Warcraft is the most popular game in the world right now. The point remains that it is still a PC game however.

I mostly play PC games but I also love my consoles and go to them when I just want something different. For the record one of my favorite games on the PS2 was Katamari Damacy.
March 8, 2007 6:25:17 PM

Interesting argument, but I have to side with other Forumites here. It's ironic, too, since most of the game media here at GDC is talking about how console gaming is moving ahead of PC gaming.

DirectX10 is swell and all, but did you watch our Crysis video? Can you honestly tell the difference between the Vista and XP versions? We couldn't. They both looked awesome. Check it out: http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/02/07/crysis-video-preview/

Here's the evidence for consoles:

Vista has issues.

More games like Splinter Cell and Residentl Evil are going to console first and the PC ports are awful.

Games like Call of Duty that originated on the PC are going console-only.

The next-gen consoles actually have some pretty sweet games exclusive to their platforms -- Zelda, Gears, Dead Rising, Resistance, etc.

All three consoles -- Wii, PS3, 360 -- are pretty good in their own right and have enough attributes that differentiate them for PCs beyond the price point of the console itself versus buying a PC.

Just a few random thoughts there. I'll probably have more later. Could be a good subject for an MMR column, I haven't been flamed in quite some time....
March 9, 2007 12:51:25 AM

After reading everones responses i think its awsem that we are talking about this topic.

First up I like to respond to some of the issues with PC's that most of you have pointed out. The fact it that most of you and many others have not really dug deep in the potential of what a computer is really capable of doing.

For start consoles are not more fun to play being that pretty much every game offered on consoles are also on PC as well, and that PC's offer more games and more serious games then consoles can ever offer, such as GTR2, MS Flight sim, WOW, Lock on combat, BF2, (and modern combat is not Battlefield I don't care what everyone thinks) the list goes on.

Second, I know consoles don't need a installation for every new game that is played, but you have to remember that PC games are able to play with out inserting the disk on start up. And im talking of back up mods. They enable you to play your game with out the insertion of a disk, now that's a bit more convenient don't you think? And any decent system these days has more then 400G.

Thirdly, this comes back to my point where PC's are much like any other appliance in your house. All systems are capable of playing any game as long as you keep in mind that you will be playing games at the time of purchase. Not so long ago I was running on a AMD Athon XP 2500+ with no name 512 RAM, ATI 9800, you get the picture, very poor lol. But ill have you know that I was able to Install, run with medium detail, complete DOOM 3 with no major crap ups I might at. This was prity much under the power of a PS2. And again its very simple if your going to play games on PC. You just don't go putting it on ya local public library or ya mum's Solitaire machine. A system can only come in the picture when its got the decent criteria of able taking in a 8800GTS or GTX, and again its not that much.

Fourthly, the Wii sucks and was designed by little 5 year olds.

Fifthly if that's even a word, anyone with descent knowledge of game consoles has a descent understanding of PC's. And the fact that consols are friendly really doesn't apply when you are up to the stage of returning your 360 for the very forth time which takes over 45 days for return. So friendly, not so much. AS for my system we get along just fine. Take care of your system and it will take care of you.

And as for the hole fact of the whole "Console TV" thing really eats me up. There is nothing on this earth that is stopping you of connecting your PC to any modern LCD or Plasma screen. The only fact is you will be losing allot of image quality and lower resolutions. And to even get a decent experience any new console you will be needing a HDTV. So yeh there's about another $2500 for ya.
As for me im running on a 30" Dell with a resolution that no TV can offer no matter how big thay are.


And my final though is on the DX10 topic.
To say that there is no difference of DX9 and 10 really is being blind sight of what history has show us. Take a look at what DX 9 has given us compared to 8. No one at this point can give an opinion about the quality of DX 10 at this point because there really has been no real development of its architecture yet. crysis is just one game not many. And im sure one year down the track there is going to be some big changes.
So to say that DX10 games will be no different and that it will have no affect on the 360 and other consoles is a fauls observation. But what you can say is that there will be no crysis or any other DX10 based shadder 4.0 games on any console.
March 9, 2007 10:08:37 AM

Actually there are alot of games that come out on consoles and not on pcs. That said they dont always come out on all consoles. The nintendo alone has most of its games only on the nintendo (zelda, mario, Wii sports). The xbox has games that are only for xbox (gears, halo, PGR) and the PS3 has games only for that(resistence,MGS etc). Also the pc has games only for pc like battlefield, most strategy games I can think of, armed assault etc. So I think in terms of games as I said before it depends what genre of games you like. PCs are best mainly for FPS and strategy and I like the former so thats why I have a gaming pc.

Another point is that I think we are seeing more and more games opeing up the other platforms. Assassins Creed is a good example of what was originally a PS game and what has opened to the PC and XBOX simply because the playstation no longer has that many customers as the PS2 did. example: there were 40million PS2s I believe and only 5 million xboxs. NOw the number of users of each platform is much more balanced.

On the other hand alot of games that were expected on pc are moving to the consoles. Enemy territory is another good example and also Bioshock which is comming for xbox. (thanks God cysis is only pc, go crysis!!) So I think this is a good and bad thing for PCs.

About your second point microsoft plans to make PCs run games straight from the CD rather than copying them completely to the HDD.

Finally I like your fourth point :) 
March 9, 2007 11:40:12 AM

Quote:
The next-gen consoles actually have some pretty sweet games exclusive to their platforms -- Zelda, Gears, Dead Rising, Resistance, etc.


Zelda has always been a console game afaik :p  :?:
I almost fell asleep playing GoW's singleplayer, I was so excited to play it too, ask my cousin :)  , multiplayer wasn't all that great for me either, but it was better.
Dead Rising, dont know anything about it. Sounds like a crappy movie.
I've read alot of not-so-great reviews of resistance, most saying it was a generic game, but i havent played it.

PC has and gets some great games, from X-com way back when, system shock, half life (so it was ported, and changed..), UT (unreal championship ewwwwwww, terrible game imo), Diablo, Starcraft (I played the n64 version too..), oblivion, havent seen it on xbox or ps3, Company of Heroes, and Command & Conquer games (Yea, I played the console ones, ps1, n64).

Theres also games that ported to PC that are better than console version imo, GTA, I cant think of anything else...

Can't we love the consoles.. nah J/K.. DIE CONSOLES! :twisted:
March 9, 2007 5:53:16 PM

If you have read about DX10 the difference between it and 9 are really night and day.
It will be an amazing difference between the two.
If you understand the technical differences between the two then it should cause some excitement. There are a few demos describing the difference between pixel and vertex/texture shaders. Basically from what I saw the biggest differance was that under DX 10 and DX 10 capability these shader units would be just shader units and do their job dynamically depending on what was needed for the particular task. Image your building a house and you have 5 construction people 2 plumbers 2 electricians. Or if you had 9 people who could do it all. Which will get it done faster? Just a crummy analogy but this is one particular part I remember from reading the specifics in it.
March 9, 2007 6:01:56 PM

That's actually not a bad analogy, and i do agree that reading about the technology has got me excited. It's not that I don't think there will be a difference, especially when developers have more time to tinker with DX10 and optimize it. However, after speaking to a lot of developers lately, especially during GDC, it just doesn't feel like they're that excited about DX10. That may happen a year from now, of course, as more and more people move to Vista. But quite a few developers have told me privately that they simply don't think there will be that much of a difference between the graphics.

Now, there could be a perfectly logical reason for this: game developers might be hedging their bets because they still want people with XP to buy their games wit the confidence that the game will look great, rather than putting off the purchase of these games until they get a good Vista rig. Also, I'm just going off what my own experience has told me, which is that quality games like Crysis look great on both OS's and both DX versions.
March 9, 2007 6:55:05 PM

Well developers aren't going to look forward to writing for DX 9 DX 10 and MAC OS or whatever they use. Also yeah it's just like 64-bit or dual-core optimization. It would be great.... if it was used/perfected but when or if that happens *shrug*
March 9, 2007 9:02:03 PM

I liked that analogy as well, even though I instantly thought of "jack of all trades, master of none." Oh well.

There is a lot of potential in DX10 and it's odd, but expected, to see negative reaction from game developers. This is not an industry where you have a lot of time to invest in experimenting. I have a feeling that they use graphical difference as an excuse to justify their fear of change. It's not DX10 alone that scares them, it's the simultaneous jump to Vista and a brand-new standard in the form of Games for Windows, like they're starting all over again.

I feel for them. I went through the same thing when Microsoft's development suite, Visual Studio, jumped to the .Net version around the same time as XP launched. I still use VS 6, as do many game developers. Change is not exciting when you have to blaze the trail alone.

In your construction analogy, it's as if building codes changed and now you're using new materials. At least the tools haven't changed in a while.
March 10, 2007 5:55:43 AM

Quote:
That's actually not a bad analogy, and i do agree that reading about the technology has got me excited. It's not that I don't think there will be a difference, especially when developers have more time to tinker with DX10 and optimize it. However, after speaking to a lot of developers lately, especially during GDC, it just doesn't feel like they're that excited about DX10. That may happen a year from now, of course, as more and more people move to Vista. But quite a few developers have told me privately that they simply don't think there will be that much of a difference between the graphics.

Now, there could be a perfectly logical reason for this: game developers might be hedging their bets because they still want people with XP to buy their games wit the confidence that the game will look great, rather than putting off the purchase of these games until they get a good Vista rig. Also, I'm just going off what my own experience has told me, which is that quality games like Crysis look great on both OS's and both DX versions.


Thats very intersting actually. From my limited knowledge I believe that DX10 doesnt offer that much of new potential in the actual graphics but more in the way certain things are achieved. That means that the difference between DX9 and DX10 are probably not that great for gamers. I would think thats why developers are not interested in DX10; because it doesnt offer that much of a change in graphics no?
!