The Future of the Console

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Again, this is a non issue. As I said, you can get a computer that's more than powerful enough for $800-900. When you consider most people own both a console and a $400-500 PC, the price difference is negligible.

---

I don't have a PC so the difference is not negligible for me. I only have a laptop because, again, I prefer doing things from my couch. The only reason I would ever buy another stand-up PC would be for gaming, and it's just too expensive to buy a PC for that purpose when I have plenty fun playing console games. When Super Mario, Nathan Drake, and single player JRPGs come to PC then I will consider switching.

PCs may be more powerful but more power is not necessary to make a great game. Console gaming is so much easier, more streamlined, and more fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Again, this is a non issue. As I said, you can get a computer that's more than powerful enough for $800-900. When you consider most people own both a console and a $400-500 PC, the price difference is negligible.

As for your other comments I also disagree with you there. Many console ports have full controller support these days, and since few people I know even turn their PC's off, the idea that you couldn't be playing a game within a minute, turn it off and quickly switch to watching TV simply has no basis in truth. I know several of people who do just that.

---

There are two faults here. The first is that your assumption about what PC people might own is too variable to be worthwhile. The only concrete numbers with regards to cost is that a gaming PC costs several times a gaming console; any additional information is meaningless. If I wanted, I could buy a £100 headset, and a £400 custom console with an £80 custom controller to go with my £800 HDTV. But assuming that people are going to do that is pointless and just skews your estimation. One can more reasonably assume that because a person owns a console, they won't need to fork over extra cash for a middle range PC, since they'd only need it for Office and the Internet. Any £100 PC will do that easily.

Similarly, not everyone leaves things on all the time, so that assumption is also nonconducive. A console costs £200, a gaming PC costs £800+; that is the only definite information we have regarding the base cost. The additional costs you should focus on is that of the games, since they are the only necessary part of gaming other that the medium.

Man. Not having a desktop computer is just weird to me. Like I realize that laptops are sort of the new standard for computers now (probably going to be replaced by tablets), but they don't seem... I dunno... solid enough for me. My current main computer is a desktop and my next one will be, too.

Anyways this thread is really turning into a personal preference one. As for me, my computer is on 24/7, Steam is always open, and I've got those 200 Steam games available to me at any time. Too bad my computer is terrible and can't even run some of them. That's why I've got my 360, for Skyrim and other graphics-intensive things. Now if I had a really decent computer, THEN things would be different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

PCs may be more powerful but more power is not necessary to make a great game.

---

You keep mentioning as though it's important to the point I was making but not only is it irrelevant I never even argued otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flambard D'Quinceteth

But assuming that people are going to do that is pointless and just skews your estimation.

---

Seeing as I didn't make such an assumption I have to disagree. The reality is that most people I know don't buy netbooks, and even a bottom of the barrel laptop running the worst hardware on the market from my casual browsing of the section the odd time I go to Future Shop tells me people are going to be spending at the bare minimum $350+tax for a complete piece of tit laptop that will likely be toast in 3-4 years. I literally went with the bare minimum price I can imagine for a mediocre laptop, and adding the cost of just about any console onto that will be almost the cost of simply buying a computer that's going to give you sufficient power to play games for the next 5 years minimum.

Quote:

---

Similarly, not everyone leaves things on all the time, so that assumption is also nonconducive.

---

So what if they don't leave their PC on all of the time? Maintain a PC well and it will start quite quickly, especially with decent hardware in it. I can start up my computer from being completely shut down and be opening Steam in not much more time than it takes to start up my PS3 and get to the menu screen in a game. My point was that realistically, Del's argument that he likes to start playing a game within a minute of hitting the power button is a non-issue, and it really is. Factor in things like sleep or standby modes in computers and it's even less of an issue.

And honestly, I don't know anyone who shuts down their computer save for their laptops on occasion. Even then, most people just close the top and let it go into sleep mode. My assumption that not only do most people not shut down their computers, but that it's unnecessary is based on first hand knowledge of the habits of dozens of friends and family.

Quote:

---

A console costs £200, a gaming PC costs £800+; that is the only definite information we have regarding the base cost.

---

Again, I offered up the real cost for mine, not to mention have experience building great PC's for others for less money, and years of browsing prices for major manufacturers. This isn't some guess work that you could build or buy a PC that will last you five years easy for the cost of buying a mediocre PC or laptop and a console. This is years of my own first hand experience in how much this stuff costs. Most people seem to think gaming PC and equate it with top of the line processors, 16GB of RAM, and $500 graphics cards. The reality is that not having stuff does not mean you won't be able to run top of the line AAA games released five years from now and have them look good. Far from it with a little smart shopping. When it comes to buying a PC, a little knowledge goes a long way.

Quote:

---

The additional costs you should focus on is that of the games, since they are the only necessary part of gaming other that the medium.

---

I could focus on the costs of the games, but considering games tend to be cheaper on the PC, that's a point of comparison that the consoles have already lost. Factor in the utterly absurd deals Steam runs almost every single day and the comparison only gets worse for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

Anyways this thread is really turning into a personal preference one.

---

Agreed, which is largely why I'm staying away from discussing what people find fun. I could care less if Del or anyone else prefers console gaming. It has no impact on my life and is about as important to me as what colour underwear the people in the house at the end of the street wear. But if we're going to start talking about gaming on a PC being too expensive I'm going to argue the point because in most cases I don't buy it. Sure, if you're never going to buy a PC or laptop anyway then it's more expensive than a console. But if you're already buying a middle of the road laptop or PC, my simple point is that for the incremental cost of buying a console as well, you can have a gaming ready PC that will serve you well for years.

Again, I'm not trying to convince Del or anybody else to skip the next console generation and buy a gaming ready PC instead. I really don't give a tit if they do or don't. I do care when they start arguing that PC gaming is prohibitively expensive though because it's not only demonstrably false, the comparison only further breaks down when you factor in game prices. Honestly, for the last few years I've been able to play more PC games for less money than I have console games. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of my console games that I own, and have enjoyed a lot of stuff that released this generation, but PC gaming is costing me a lot less these days despite buying considerably more.

To add a little gasoline to this fire, I'll give you an idea where my discussion with my friend went, which was that Sony and Microsoft's consoles would eventually evolve into PCs in a few console generations unless they reversed modern development practices and returned to what made consoles unique from the PC market. Amusingly, we both agreed that even if both companies went pure PC eventually, we both had a difficult time feeling Nintendo would go that route. We figured they would keep the console niche market going in this scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

Man. Not having a desktop computer is just weird to me. Like I realize that laptops are sort of the new standard for computers now (probably going to be replaced by tablets), but they don't seem... I dunno... solid enough for me. My current main computer is a desktop and my next one will be, too.

Anyways this thread is really turning into a personal preference one.

---

For people like me who want to use their own computer at other places, having a laptop is the better option for me. I also don't really care for tablets or smart phones. Sure, those are more portable, but I am rarely in a position where my laptop is a problem in terms of space.

I'm not going to try to kid anyone here and try to say that it is better than some pimped out gaming rig, but I'm a person that does not needs max setting for everything. Plus, I feel my laptop is damn great as it is. Again, I grew up on consoles, so I have no problem going that route if that is an option.

I also have grown to love putting my laptop on my HDTV. In fact, I am typing this now sitting comfortably on my couch. I also have various set ups rigged to play emulated and "official" games on my couch with minimal effort, console controllers and all. I don't consider myself a "computer guy" and setting that stuff up was quick and easy. Yes, hooking up a desktop PC to a HDTV is also easy, but if I am going to sink a decent amount of money into a computer, I rather have portability.

Say a friend called to just chill. He wants me to go to his house just to BS. Usually in my group of friends, people tend to multitask when we are just generally hanging out. Instead of getting in his way and using his computer, I can close my laptop, throw it in the bag, drive to my friend's house, open it and immediately resume whatever I am doing with my settings on my "territory."

But as Pike said, this is pretty much a personal preference thing. I guess I felt like throwing in my preferences too.

EDIT: Just caught up with the thread too. Now I'm wondering how many people are going to yell at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

You keep mentioning as though it's important to the point I was making but not only is it irrelevant I never even argued otherwise.

---

I was just mentioning it in general because someone made that point in this thread somewhere. You probably didn't mention it but I wasn't sure since I'm sure as hell not going to read all that.

It's red, by the way.

What great blockbuster high-budget games are there exclusive for PC that are not MMO? This is not a trap question, I genuinely do not know. Many of the great series are for both (Mass Effect, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed), but others such as Uncharted, Super Mario Galaxy, and God of War are console only. Hell I'll throw Xenoblade in there too since that has been the best JRPG of this generation by far.

I know PC games have Diablo III and WoW and those are big titles, but they are online-only games and I've always thought PC was better for online play. For the best single-player experience, console is still the way to go.

i haven't read this thread and i'm not gonna but

OUYA: A New Kind of Video Game Console by OUYA — Kickstarter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krissy

i haven't read this thread and i'm not gonna but

OUYA: A New Kind of Video Game Console by OUYA — Kickstarter

---

Beat ya to it on page 1. Still not sure what to think of this though. All depends on what games will be developed for it.

I think low end consoles (such as the Ouya) and cloud gaming is going to take over the console industry, while the PC will of course, still be the preferred platform for hardcore gamers.

It's not a wonder that the Ouya kickstarter has earned 4 mil in 2.5 days. The industry has been trying to push a "PC console" for awhile so it is not a new idea. But I think we now have the technology and consumer base to make it happen. Back when the Phantom was trying to make waves many people till didnt have broadband, HD space was still expensive, etc. Alsso, Graphics for mobile games are becoming more and more impressive... and right now developers are preferring to develop mobile and social games because they are cheaper to develop for and more profitable/less risky. But just imagine the potential for games like these being developed except for with a controller and meant to play on a television.

There are cloud services such as OnLive and PlayCast being built into internet TVs/part of cable packages. Gaikai, a cloud service, was just bought by Sony and a Sony spokesperson has claimed that cloud gaming is the future.

I think the idea of expensive, clunky, architecturally closed consoles is becoming less and less appealing to people. On top of all that, Nintendo and social/mobile developers have tapped into a market of "non-gamers" which is much bigger than the gamer market. That being said, I don't think the Wii U will be a big success like the Wii was and in fact, think that the Android/iOS games (or even took a back seat to the DS) and stunted the Wii's growth in the latter half of its lifespan.

I have a decent gaming computer. The graphics card is mid range for the time (ATI 5770) and it still handles most things at a level I am more than happy with. When the next round (ATI 8xxx although I will probably go back to NVida) comes out I will upgrade the graphics card for another $150ish or more and be good to go. I play games on my TV from the PC all the time with a controller. I have surround sound and everything. It is no different than a console for me. When I am done, BAM!, my PC is already on the TV...go to netflix or something else. The Steam summer sale JUST started so I imagine I will get some more games and play them on the PC on my TV as if it were a console.

I refuse to buy a full game for download on a console because they don't want to support backwards compatibility so they can sell you the same game again in a few years. How many times has Nintendo sold Super Mario Bros. or Squenix sold Final Fantasy IV? Having one machine that can do all of that (and it is getting easier to emulate older games) is a far nicer option and I don't have to remember where I stored everything any more. With Steam and GOG I can just redownload everything again if I want. AWESOME!

My biggest problem with consoles now is that they are trying to be PCs instead of gaming/simple multimedia devices. XBox was great until the last UI redesign. Now it is annoying and cumbersome all so they can use the Kinnect which is awesome for a lot things but control of an OS and gaming are not amongst those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

I was just mentioning it in general because someone made that point in this thread somewhere. You probably didn't mention it but I wasn't sure since I'm sure as hell not going to read all that.

---

Quote:

---

What great blockbuster high-budget games are there exclusive for PC that are not MMO? This is not a trap question, I genuinely do not know.

---

Tends to be genres the PC is better at more often than not if you're looking for AAA type titles. Obviously stuff like Starcraft, other RTS titles like the Total War, Dawn of War, company of heroes types. You've got your turn based/4X stuff like Civilization 5 (don't play Civ 5 by the way), though you get some really cool stuff like Amnesia: The Dark Descent in there. And obviously not exclusives, but you honestly couldn't pay me to play games like Portal, Left 4 Dead, Metro 2033, or just about any other FPS or strategy game on a console over PC. Mouse and Keyboard just feels too good. Thing is, AAA development tends to focus on multi-platform without the backing of a company like Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft just because it's expensive as hell and it's a bad idea to limit your sales like that. Luckily, aside from getting a lot of the good multi-platform stuff lately, PC also has a much better scene when it comes to indie titles and lower budget games. Stuff that is really good, but budget wise doesn't compete with major console developers, and especially stuff that just can't deal with the licensing hoops major console manufacturers make you jump through.

Honestly, that stuff is more the draw for me these days, and it's one of the big benefits of an open platform.

Quote:

---

For the best single-player experience, console is still the way to go.

---

I disagree, but only because there's nothing that makes one or the other better at single or multiplayer (though you could argue being an open platform allows a wider variety of online games on PC, and with less silly bulltit forced on the player by manufacturers). The only thing that leads to the distinction I think is that many people who play PC games prefer PC multiplayer to console, and historically consoles focused more on single player, even long after online was available on PC's, by simple necessity. There's no fundamental functional difference which makes one better at a specific style of play than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete for President

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krissy

i haven't read this thread and i'm not gonna but

OUYA: A New Kind of Video Game Console by OUYA — Kickstarter

---

Beat ya to it on page 1. Still not sure what to think of this though. All depends on what games will be developed for it.

---

I had heard about this but hadn't looked into it closely until earlier today, and all I can say is holy smurf, this is a console I can get behind. As long as people are putting out great games for it, consider me there. I actually like the concept so much I'm considering supporting the kickstarter if my money situation allows.

An inexpensive console that's a completely open platform for developers and end users, and since it's not bleeding edge technology, probably pretty easy to develop for, plus everything on it has to be either free-to-play or offer a free trial? Essentially a lot of the benefits of a PC in a low price console form factor. Seriously, just take my damn money already.

I wish I had some money so I could back that OUYA thang. I can't wait for that.

First of all, it is absolutely preposterous to claim the console is in trouble, or that the console is going anywhere.. Every year, guaranteed, a Call of Duty, a Rockstar game, a Bioware/Bethesda RPG, all come out and make more money than you possibly can in any other medium today. PC is great, as I'll get to, but they'll never reach that popularity. When you have to copy and paste a line of code from a google search into your .ini file, that's the point at which the overwhelming vast majority of the consumer stops participating. And Android/iOS does not cut into the console market. Almost everyone who plays on those platforms are not "gamers." I know some of us are the exception, but I've had a smartphone for almost a year now and I do not enjoy playing video games on my phone.

That said, I think a lot of you that are more than capable, bright young individuals are not giving PC a fair shake. I have to agree with Vivi that you have all fell for the propaganda that PC gaming is more expensive than it really is. Yes, a proper "gaming" PC will always hover around that $900, 1k mark, but it is not necessary. Because this console generation has gone on for so long, you can decently play the vast majority of new titles coming out today on a rig that is maybe half that cost. And I'm guessing it will probably be like that for the foreseeable future, considering how big the base on PS3/360 will continue to be even into the next generation.

But the real kicker is that the money you may spend extra on a PC, you're almost guaranteed to make up in the cost of games. Because of piracy, distribution outlets for PC games are willing to practically give the games away to you for free. And I"m talking about games that are 1-2 years old or even came out this year. Like I got last year's Dragon Age II along with the complete edition of the first one for less than $10. Or this year's amazing Crusader Kings II with a ton of other games from the publisher for $12. I'm buying full titles for less than $3 on the Steam summer sale right now and new games from this quarter that are going for $30, $20. Not to mention on launch day, you're almost guaranteed to get the game for at least $10 less. And do we even need to get into backwards compatibility??? The range of titles you'll be able to get for almost pennies???

In any case, I haven't jumped the console ship. It does have its advantages. I've played Call of Duty on PC and Call of Duty on console and I think we shouldn't undervalue the achievement this generation that developers have managed to make FPS more fun on consoles. With games like Killzone and Gears of War, you can't translate their heavy gameplay adequately to a mouse and keyboard. On a comfort level, I'd never want to play a JRPG, an action game, or a racer hunched over my desk, but at the same token I'd never want to play a strategy game, a simulation title, or an intense WRPG laying lazily on my couch. They both have their advantages and can do incredibly fun things that the other can't.

And I think that's what you guys are missing. We don't have to say which one is definitively better and which one is undisputably useless. We can all win.

One last point, I think it's a mischaracterization to say consoles have "gone PC." This started when Sony let you play your music CDs on your PlayStation 1. In fact, we can take this back to devices like the home stereo or the VHS, before PCs even did these kinds of things. There's no reason why something that plays videos like hulu or netflix is more foreign to a console than it is to PC. Other than a web browser, it's hard to point out what is exclusively in the PC domain that consoles have taken. When a console has a word processor and lets you make spreadsheets and connect to a printer, then we can say it has gone PC, but until then I don't buy it.

Bolivar, you're nuts. Mouse/Keyboard is a far better input device for shooters than a controller.

I'm not sure what exactly the future of consoles is.

I want consoles to go away, presonally. I'm sick of the fanboy arguments, sick of the restrictions, sick of the exclusivity war.

I like playing with the PC. With the exception of handhelds, it's my favorite console. So I get my games on PC. Why does this exclude me from the rest of the gaming community? Why can't I play Mass Effect 3 alongside gamers using an XBox 360 or a PS3? The games are functionally identical.

Why isn't a game console just a media platform? We never get DVDs that only play on Sony DVD players, or anything like that. We don't get a computer that can't link to all of the internet.

Consoles are getting more and more PC like in terms of their capabilities, yet they are still living in a world before PCs existed. Their views of how games have to be developed, how they can be sold and marketed, is dragging down the industry.

You can go out, buy a game, and have it work on your PC, your Mac, a Linux system, or practically any other OS out there. Yet consoles won't recognize it. Why not? What is a PS3 except a graphical and gameplay focused computer with peripherals, a customized OS, and a Blu-Ray player?