PC vs. consoles.

Some people are saying that the next generation of consoles will effectively kill off the PC gaming scene. I disagree. Some games are designed to be played on the PC (true D20-style RPGs, MMOs, and FPS) and some games are better left to the consoles (platformers, girly Japanese RPGs (haha, jk jk), fighting games).

I'm personally a PC gamer. Console games just don't entertain me as much as PC games do. Plus PC games have a very dedicated modding community, which is something you just can't do with console games.

Discuss.

I sold all my consoles because I'm relying on the fact PC will always triumph. And I totally agree witih modding, which is the main reason I stick with PC and not with consoles, like PS2 and whatnot. Plus, all the good games that are on consoles usually are on PC anyways, and all the GREAT games are on PC and not consoles ;)

PC Games are already running at next-gen level (Battlefield 2 for example), so consoles will always be left behind.

You can't upgrade a console, once it's built that's what it's stuck with and what the games have to work with.

I suppose the best part of a console is that all the games are made to run on the same system, you don't HAVE to upgrade stuff in order to run the lastest game. But then, if you have the money, you're likely to have the latest PC anyway.

I have the latest Pc and all the best consoles which are out in europe, so i am happy :D

Psh anyone knows the PC and consoles work together with modchips D: My friend has like a binder full of games.

On that same note no i dont believe both will kill each other, both serve different purposes, PCs are not only there to play games after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I sold all my consoles because I'm relying on the fact PC will always triumph. And I totally agree witih modding, which is the main reason I stick with PC and not with consoles, like PS2 and whatnot. Plus, all the good games that are on consoles usually are on PC anyways, and all the GREAT games are on PC and not consoles ;)

---

PC games have always had the superior technology, but on the other hand it is much more expensive to continously upgrade your PC. Without updates it quickly becomes outdated. Still I'm partial to PC games myself, but I've been drifting back to consoles more in the past month.

This coming generation will not kill the PC but I have my doubts about the generation after that. It could go either way with becoming over powered or under powered. Either way I agree that some games can't work as a console game. I can't imagine playing a really good RTS on a console.

I'm not a PC gamer, since I haven't got one good enough to run any of the latest titles, but I'd rather have a decent PC than the latest console any day. Like people have said, console technology doesn't progress as quickly as that of a PC, so the latest PC titles will always be just out of consoles' reach. Not to mention that I'm a big fan of RTS titles and other games that simply can't be found on a console.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

I can't imagine playing a really good RTS on a console.

---

Agreed. And I find playing an FPS without a mouse isn't much fun. But I do think once we're on consoles with huge built in hard drives where people can happily release mods and online console gaming is fast, easy and dirt cheap people may be less inclined towards PCs.

Well, now that consoles are expanding into being family room media players, they should stick around for far longer. Also, PCs have too many other reasons not to die, so people will always be making games for them too.

Game consoles are going to become PCs in the next few generations, just watch. Playstation 5 will run Microsoft Vista and the Nintendo Gamedodecahedron will be running Mac OSX Tabby Edition.

why would people buy a consel that "acts" lile a pc, when they could get a real pc for about the same price. even if consuls become like pc's i will always take the pc over the consul. their will just be always more you can do.

You CAN'T get a PC for the same price. Consoles launch for $300-$400 usually. Computers can launch for $2500, and that's not even cutting edge. Even reasonably priced computers go for about $1000. Consoles typically reach the end of their lifespan at around $90.

Why would you want a console that acts like a PC? Well I can't answer that, but they seem to make gamers salivate in anticipation. They're already on the market and you already love them. Don't believe me?

Hard Drive: X-box, PS2 (optional)
CD playback: I'm fairly sure even the Famicom has a CD player adapter, that's how ubiquitous this feature is.
DVD playback: PS2, Xbox, Panasonic Q
Internet connectivity: Xbox, PS2, Dreamcast, PSP, Gamecube
MP3 playback: Xbox, PSP
Multimedia (read: it plays movies): PSP
Wireless networking: PSP, DS

Each new console that gets released acts more and more like a computer. It won't be long before they're indiscernable.

PC's are better to have than a console but not most of the games you like are on the pc.

I'm a console gamer. There's no compatability issues when developing a console game, because of the common medium you're developing for. They're not upgradable, but that can empty out someone's savings account. I'd say the typical 5 or so year lifespan of a console warrants the few hundred dollar purchase. I don't think either format is really superior, but I like consoles because I'd much rather sit down in a comfy chair with a controller and play my games on a good-sized TV and not have to worry about installation or upgrading because my console isn't powerful enough. It's hard for me to play any games on a monitor. It's tough to even play emulated versions of old classics sometimes.

With that said, some of the funnest gaming I've ever experienced was back in the day playing LAN Half-Life deathmatches and LAN co-op Counter-Strike. A couple genres, namely FPS and RTS, really shine on the PC platform with a keyboard and mouse, though I do have plenty of fun playing Halo and the like. The other thing I like about PC gaming is the potential that each and every game has for 1st party expansions and even 3rd party mods etc. You can effectively play a game forever if you can find good expansions to keep you interested.

i have never had a problem with analog controls for fps's on consoles. sometimes i actually prefer it.

one question how did first person shooters do aiming on consoles before analog?

They didn't really. Sure, there was DOOM for the SNES, but DOOM didn't have a Z-axis anyway.

i never played doom. was everything on a flat plane then?

Yeah, it was a first person shooter like any other FPS you've played, but there was only two dimensions. You could walk forward and turn (and strafe while holding an extra key), but manual aiming (up and down) was absent.

I play mostly all consoles because the PC is mainly for FPS's and MMORPGS, and I'm not really all that into either of them.

Quote:

---

You CAN'T get a PC for the same price. Consoles launch for $300-$400 usually. Computers can launch for $2500, and that's not even cutting edge. Even reasonably priced computers go for about $1000. Consoles typically reach the end of their lifespan at around $90.

---

i got my computer for around $600 which is in the guessed price range for the xbox 360 and it works really well for most games. i will agree with you that most people who buy computers for games however will generally spend well over $1000 on it.


i really would rather play on a keyboard and mouse the a controller. i mean you have quick keys for everything. and it just feels eiser to me. but thats my opinion. i also like the ability to mod and download like new maps and whatnot. but again thats just me.

Ah, but the PS2, GC and Xbox all have keyboards, and many games even support hotkeying when that sort of thing is remotely useful! And with the hard drives and internet connectivity that the Xbox and PS2 have, you can download mods and extras! Heck, even the Dreamcast let you do that much.

AND PS3 IS TEH 256 BIT OMFGLOLWTFASLBBQ!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!1!!!!!111one1!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJZen

And with the hard drives and internet connectivity that the Xbox and PS2 have, you can download mods and extras! Heck, even the Dreamcast let you do that much.

AND PS3 IS TEH 256 BIT OMFGLOLWTFASLBBQ!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!1!!!!!111one1!!!!!

---

Extras, maybe. When I say mods, I'm thinking fan-created freely-released mods.

And even though I detect your sarcasm in the latter statement, I still feel the need to state that those numbers are pretty much insignificant these days.

There were tons for FPS that dont use analog controls, analog is a fairly new implimenation (PS 1) but there were tons of fps pre analog.

The only appeal of consoles is the fact that a cpu is more $expensive to keep up with gaming standards. Consoles will always be milked for as long as possible.

bipper

How would PC gaming ever die out? The PC itself would have to die out.

Anyway, console and PC gaming are geared for different people. FPS, RTS, and RPGs (debatable) will always be better on the PC. Platformers, Sports, and Racers will always be better on consoles.

I prefer the PC as a gaming medium. Sure it can be frustrating at times, but PCs will always be a step ahead of a stagnant console.

I mostly play RPGs. I stick to consoles for those, because that's how I grew up playing them - with a controller in my hand. However, when I played MMORPGs, I always played on the PC. I also recognize that most other online games and other genres such as FPSs are better played on the PC, but I don't play most of those games. I play one-player RPGs and the occasional sports title, so I stick mainly with console gaming.

There's a few reasons why PCs are better than consoles:

- Upgradable
- Moddable
- Self-Moddable
- Emulation
- Internet
- Mouse: You can't play an FPS properly with a D-Pad Yes, I know there's mouse adapters, but the number of people I know with consoles + mice are ridiculously out of ratio.
- PCs got Diablo

So PC all the way without question.

All the above can be done to most other consoles... save for diablo.

Well you could if you had a lot of time, but the game aint worth it :p

Bipper

Here are similar reasons why consoles are better than PCs:

- moddable + roms/isos
- emulation
- internet play
- 46313564565464 RPGs to choose from.
- 45555444679831 Fighting games to choose from
- repeat for plenty of game styles
- Katamari Damacy, Disgaea, Makai Kingdom...
- cheap
- handeld consoles.
- the ps2 I bought a couple years back was playing the first games released for it, plays the games released now, and will play the games released in a couple of years. No need to get a new 3D card because 2 years passed.
- On a GC for example, I can play a 4-player game with one TV and one console. No need for 4 monitors and 4 central units :p


Anyway, all this is ridiculous. The console won't kill the PC as a gaming device, nor will the PC kill the consoles. I've been hearing that for years, and there's no sign it'll ever happen.

the way things are going pcs and consoles won't exist as seperate entities. they will also do tv and and other stuff. they will probbaly reduce in size to the modern laptop size as well.

I think your home will contain a cheaper Media Computer, and then a pc for more advanced applications. For the sake, of keeping work and play seperate :) I mean, some pc user getting a virus shouldnt qreck your tv time after all

bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheezo

Extras, maybe. When I say mods, I'm thinking fan-created freely-released mods.

And even though I detect your sarcasm in the latter statement, I still feel the need to state that those numbers are pretty much insignificant these days.

---

And I feel the need to back that statement up by saying yes, system bus archetecture doesn't matter at all anymore. Consider that all games released for PC are currently running at 32 bits. Not even 64 bits (I don't care what board/CPU setup you're using, the game itself is only sending out instructions in 32 bit. Saying otherwise is like calling a Gameboy game 16 bit when you play it on your Super Gameboy, or 32 bit when you play it on your GBA). And yet the 32 bit games consistently look better than the 128 bit console games. Heck, you could probably throw together an 8 bit system that kicks ass if you were really hell bent on it.

As far as homebrew mods for consoles, I doubt that's far off. The way they're pushing PCs and consoles together lately it seems like they have something along those lines in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

I think your home will contain a cheaper Media Computer, and then a pc for more advanced applications. For the sake, of keeping work and play seperate I mean, some pc user getting a virus shouldnt qreck your tv time after all

---

You've got it backwards. Multimedia taxes system resources more than anything. Good speakers are expensive. Good graphics cards are expensive. Good monitors are expensive. Processors powerful enough to handle all these demands are expensive. That's just how it works. I'm not sure what these more advanced work applications are that you were thinking of, but while MS Office is indeed a memory hog, it's not NEARLY as bad as running a modern game. Unless you're working for Pixar you're probably not running intensive apps for work. If you ARE working for Pixar, that again relates to Multimedia, and is in a whole special category by itself. If the set top box DID come around it certainly wouldn't be cheap, but it might be cheap-er than having a computer, a DVD player, a game console, a DVR, a scanner, a printer, a phone and a home stereo system all seperately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJZen

Ah, but the PS2, GC and Xbox all have keyboards, and many games even support hotkeying when that sort of thing is remotely useful! And with the hard drives and internet connectivity that the Xbox and PS2 have, you can download mods and extras! Heck, even the Dreamcast let you do that much.

AND PS3 IS TEH 256 BIT OMFGLOLWTFASLBBQ!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!1!!!!!111one1!!!!!

---

the reason i dont like the internet for systems like xbox is the same reason i dont like mmorpg's i mean you pay like $50+ to buy the game, then they are going to charge you more to play it. at least the internet on the computer is..... well, not free, but it allows you to do more than play games. and now that i think about it, you have to have super expensive braodband internet to use things like xbox live anyways. what a ripoff.

and also, does anyone know what made the ps2 such "low quality system?" it was being able to play ps1 games. when they put that ability in it minimized their ability to use new game tchnology. that is also what will make the ps3 not so good. being able to play ps1 games. ps2 hade some good games. but they wernt as good as they could have been.

i never foubnd a keyboard for any consol system. where can you get one?

what is wrong with analog control?

the ps2 was not a low quality system by any stretch of the imagination. it did the best with what was available at the time. the snes was a low quality system by modern standards in the same way. adding backwards compatibility did not reduce what it was capable of and increased it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJZen

You CAN'T get a PC for the same price. Consoles launch for $300-$400 usually. Computers can launch for $2500, and that's not even cutting edge. Even reasonably priced computers go for about $1000. Consoles typically reach the end of their lifespan at around $90.

---

A computer doesnt necessarily, launch, it depends on what you have in it. If you want to play the latest games with great preformance, the MAX you should spend on a brand new computeris $800-$1000, but even there is questionable. Its rediculous to say that the best computers are $2500, unless you are buying from Alienware, who jack there prices so high it makes them look like idiots to the high tech world.

I like console gaming better personally but that's just me. Mostly because I'm not a huge "online" fan.

But it really depends on the type of gamer you are.

PC games:
* Great for mod scenes, which is difficult to do with a joypad.
* Great for MMO type games, because most PCs come internet ready (ans most people already have an internet plan), plus it's easier to chat with people via keyboard than anything else.
* Pretty good for RTS & FPS games.

Consoles:
* Good if you want to keep the same "gaming rig" running for a while without needing to worry about sound cards and drivers and video cards. For any new game on the PC, unless you have a pretty new system, all the games with pretty graphics may not even work for you. Plus if you upgrade a device or device driver for a new game, it may mess up your previous games and make them unplayable.
* good for "party games" that require 2+ players in the same room (can you imagine trying to configure a keyboard to be used by 4 competitors at once? MAkes my fingers cramp just thinking about it).
* The joysticks are a bit more ergonomic if you play for a long time.
* Great for single player games like platformers and rpgs
(at least the jrpgs)

online gaming sucks. even more so now you have to pay alot of the time.

one day everything will be integrated and eveyone will be happy until they get a virus or corrupt file.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the ps2 was not a low quality system by any stretch of the imagination. it did the best with what was available at the time. the snes was a low quality system by modern standards in the same way. adding backwards compatibility did not reduce what it was capable of and increased it's worth.

---

The ps2 because of its backwards compatability had limited ability to make new games. all the hardware and software had to complie so essentially the ps2 was a ps1 with a minor graphics upgrade and a dvd player. thus making it a lower quality system. the reason that it did so well was because it was the first of the new systems to come out.

but this thread isnt about the ps2 so i will end by saying that i am really not a big fan of most online games. because you have to pay sooooooooo much for them. and thats why i like the computer more, as was stated erlier, it is internet ready, and their are games that can be played online for free.

Ummm... So I guess the Genesis was really nothing more than a slightly updated Master System which crippled its overall potential as a system. Or the DS is just a glorified Gameboy Color. In fact, the Dell I'm typing this from right now is really just a slightly updated 8086 based computer.

Yes, internet costs money, there's no getting around that. Some companies charge money for playing online, some don't. It's really no different from internet access from a PC. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously using their parents's computer. :love:

Hawkeye, you seem to be agreeing with me. I was saying that computers on the upwards end can go for $2500 because I WAS talking about Alienware. You can make a computer on steroids for about half what you'd pay them for it, but they DO actually make sales. Want to know how much the most expensive console ever made was? $2000, and even that wasn't a console in the strictest sense, it was primarily a media center like the PSX with some minor game functions built in. The PSX, for the record, came in two models. The more expensive of which only cost about $905.

So what's my point? My point is this. Game consoles are cheaper than computers. The Laseractive is really the only exception to this and it sold pitifully, and it was really just a glorified laserdisc player. I'm not saying consoles are going to win some sort of made up war against PCs, I'm saying the two are really going to merge into the same thing in the next few generations. They've been pushing for this ever since the CD-i came out back in 1991, and other consoles (ESPECIALLY Bandai's Pippin) have really showed that for the video game industry, "progress" means adding more and more PC like gimmicks. Just look at the Xbox 360, it's really media center that just happens to be able to play video games. The result isn't going to be one or the other, it's going to be the fabled "set top box". This is why the next generation of consoles is deliberately using a design that looks like something rich people would stick next to their TV. The designs are literally right out of the art deco textbook. Now here's the kicker. What is a game console's main function? To play games, duh. However, a console that ONLY plays games is considered inferior. This is exactly why the Gamecube was doomed from the start, and it's why the Revolution looks like it won't have a terrific lead in the next big race. I just want all you to think about that next time you post a rant about why you're not so into computer-like features on your game systems.

*gasps for oxygen*

Quote:

---

What is a game console's main function? To play games, duh. However, a console that ONLY plays games is considered inferior. This is exactly why the Gamecube was doomed from the start, and it's why the Revolution looks like it won't have a terrific lead in the next big race. I just want all you to think about that next time you post a rant about why you're not so into computer-like features on your game systems.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, internet costs money, there's no getting around that. Some companies charge money for playing online, some don't. It's really no different from internet access from a PC. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously using their parents's computer.

---

Quoted for truth. It disgusts me how people say PSP is better but only because of its mods and not what the PSP should really do(plaly games, and to those that actually play it for the games than the mods, this doesnt include you).

And if paying for a game like that is bad, then you upkeep the servers.

im more oh a console player myself, but with a good anuf PC you can playany pc game or emulate any console, but on the other hand, as someone mentioned before, it is costly to keep upgarding your pc, personally i cant wait to get my hand on one of the PSP's and im just waiting for then Xbox 360 (im gunna have to get one of those)

however there is one simple solution to this GET BOTH :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJzen

You've got it backwards. Multimedia taxes system resources more than anything. Good speakers are expensive. Good graphics cards are expensive. Good monitors are expensive. Processors powerful enough to handle all these demands are expensive. That's just how it works. I'm not sure what these more advanced work applications are that you were thinking of, but while MS Office is indeed a memory hog, it's not NEARLY as bad as running a modern game. Unless you're working for Pixar you're probably not running intensive apps for work. If you ARE working for Pixar, that again relates to Multimedia, and is in a whole special category by itself. If the set top box DID come around it certainly wouldn't be cheap, but it might be cheap-er than having a computer, a DVD player, a game console, a DVR, a scanner, a printer, a phone and a home stereo system all seperately.

---

I tend to aggree that while your tv will be rigged to a multimedia computer thus *needing more power*; What I was really gonna say was that your multimedia computer and PC will remain seperated. By more advanced uses I meant mainly work and other nont media leisure time activities. I ment the applications were more advanced, not the tools required to run them. Poorly worded I guess and sorry. I don't ever think that the Home Theatre will get more ADVANCED than the pc. It will remain a media propriatary system.

Video games, DVD entertainment, Television, smellovision and all the other multimedia entertainment on one computer, and other systems on another. I don't really think (or hope) that home theaters get more out of control and over the top.

I think that families spending money on more of an integrated network of your PCs and derived machines would be a better way of doing things while running your theatre seperatley. Say for those people who live with families, know that having more than one computer now adays seems essential.

Bipper

I actually like both consoles and PCs for gaming. Certain things work well on one, certain things work well on the other. For example, strategy games are one of my fave genres, and the PC can absolutely kick the crap out of consoles for those. On the other hand, consoles do have many more RPGs and with a few exceptions, does them better. FPS games are kinda down the middle IMO. I think they can work perfectly well if the controls are refined for the console properly (That would be TimeSplitters we're talking about.).

*Shrugs* It's all gravy though. I have a pile of console games and a pile of PC games. If I were only to choose one, I'd have to go with PC because of the Civilization games, but I'd be damn sad to see many things on the consoles going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJZen

Ummm... So I guess the Genesis was really nothing more than a slightly updated Master System which crippled its overall potential as a system. Or the DS is just a glorified Gameboy Color. In fact, the Dell I'm typing this from right now is really just a slightly updated 8086 based computer.

Yes, internet costs money, there's no getting around that. Some companies charge money for playing online, some don't. It's really no different from internet access from a PC. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously using their parents's computer. :love:

Hawkeye, you seem to be agreeing with me. I was saying that computers on the upwards end can go for $2500 because I WAS talking about Alienware. You can make a computer on steroids for about half what you'd pay them for it, but they DO actually make sales. Want to know how much the most expensive console ever made was? $2000, and even that wasn't a console in the strictest sense, it was primarily a media center like the PSX with some minor game functions built in. The PSX, for the record, came in two models. The more expensive of which only cost about $905.

So what's my point? My point is this. Game consoles are cheaper than computers. The Laseractive is really the only exception to this and it sold pitifully, and it was really just a glorified laserdisc player. I'm not saying consoles are going to win some sort of made up war against PCs, I'm saying the two are really going to merge into the same thing in the next few generations. They've been pushing for this ever since the CD-i came out back in 1991, and other consoles (ESPECIALLY Bandai's Pippin) have really showed that for the video game industry, "progress" means adding more and more PC like gimmicks. Just look at the Xbox 360, it's really media center that just happens to be able to play video games. The result isn't going to be one or the other, it's going to be the fabled "set top box". This is why the next generation of consoles is deliberately using a design that looks like something rich people would stick next to their TV. The designs are literally right out of the art deco textbook. Now here's the kicker. What is a game console's main function? To play games, duh. However, a console that ONLY plays games is considered inferior. This is exactly why the Gamecube was doomed from the start, and it's why the Revolution looks like it won't have a terrific lead in the next big race. I just want all you to think about that next time you post a rant about why you're not so into computer-like features on your game systems.

*gasps for oxygen*

---

1)yes and no, i cant compare genisis to master system because i never saw or played a master system. the ds has two seperate ports, one for older games to keep being allowed to play them, and one for new games so it can still be up to speed. (the advanced on the other hand was just a slight upgrade to the color.) and older games have a tendency not to run on newer computers, ex. i cant play red alert on anything newer than an operating system of windowes 95.

2) true. but to play internet games on consols, you have to have a good internet + pay for whatever internet thing the system uses.

3) i agree with all of your statments in theory.

4) also unfortunatly true. i like the gamecube. the other two had their good points, but when i buy a consol, i want it to play games. with the ps2 it seemed like you were really paying for the dvd player with a second hand ability to play games. the xbox was ok, but i only really like maybe four of its games, and of those four three of them you could get for pc.

The problem with the console wars now is that, although people might buy it for the games, the fact that multimedia is being considered at all means that any gaming console that does not have multimedia, is labeled as an inferior console in which i do agree that most people are doing so(PSP vs DS showed that). So buying the console for its games only is not the only reason nor is it the defining reason anymore for some gamers.

I'm just gonna keep saying this in the hope that it will sink in....

Multimedia is more of a strain on your system than other non-leisure applications. Balancing your checkbook isn't going to need a powerful computer. Playing video games will. Watching HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray discs is going to need a more advanced system than running Word or Excel. Your non-leisure machine is really the one that should be cheaper.

Playing online games is going to cost you money one way or another. You need to pay for the internet connection anyway, and you'll need to pay a subscription fee in addition. Different companies go about this in different ways. Very rare is the MMORPG that is free. Less rare is the FPS server that is free. Regardless, one way or another, you're going to have to pay money for it.

Backwards compatibility does not cripple a system EXCEPT for in the case of Windows, but only because Windows 9x was so hideously made that you could make it crash by blowing on it. A slight update to a system isn't like PS to PS2, it's like WinXP with SP1 to WinXP with SP2.

I just hate how you have to have the right specs, can't play some old games easily on newer PCs, have to install everything, blah blah.

Gaming is best on consoles...although saying that, point and click adventures should only be played on PC really, and Day of the Tentacle and the Monkey Island games are a couple of my favourite games ever.

So yeah, PC for some things, but mostly I like to be sat on a comfy sofa/bed in front of a TV for gaming.

DJzen - What I am saying, is that your pc and home theatre will be SEPERATE. While yes, gaming puts more of a strain on your PC - your pc is a more rounded machine. In my mind - it will always be. Consoles are propritarty, and thus need less resources to handle different apps.

For instance; with out tweaking a computer - a box with equal specs to an xBOX will not play the games nearly as well. (Kinda a bad example as the xbox isnt the most efficiant horse - but still true enough) This is what keeps consoles so affordable and powerful. They are able to milk thier models and make more money before creating a new series. Xbox for instance; is extremley outdated by PC comparasins, but it still is spitting out some great title and graphics.

I don;t think games will ever up and leave the PC - and being that the pc will still prolly play games (even if they are older er such). The gaming factor alone, along with the other uses for the pc will require more resources since it is a more rounded machine. Thus effectivley needint more resources.

Quote:

---

Watching HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray discs is going to need a more advanced system than running Word or Excel

---

A DVD player can be prioritized - thus requireing less power than a pc that would do the same job.

Quote:

---

Backwards compatibility does not cripple a system

---

It very well can when you think of all the extra software that may need to be added to support the old.


edit: I do think that the console will evolve into the media stronghold though - whil hopfully keeping itself propitory. If multiple companies run in demainding that different (ehll even file) types get supported the machine will slowly become less efficiant. Keeping your PC (used for multiple and often important things) seperate from your media box would be essencial.

Bipper

Actually it depends, when you try to put something like a PS1 game into a PS2 which is a DVD-ROM, it better well damn run CDs else its just not right. However a revolution with a Gamecube backward compatibility might pose problems.

The nintendo revolution has a smart disk drive. there is no tray, you just cram the disk in the slot and it does the rest.

Nothing is better than blowing your old nintendo though.... pricless

**good point though - I didn't even consider hardware when i was thinking backwards compatability lol :)
Bipper

has anyone noted that while the ps3 is backwards compatible it lacks memory card slots? that's a right bugger.

isn't the backwards compatibilty on the revolution by downloading? and the smaller disc for gamecubes shouldn't be a hassle. normal dvd drives can play discs that size as well as square ones, triangle ones, star ones, and other shapes they used to make them in.

Quote:

---

has anyone noted that while the ps3 is backwards compatible it lacks memory card slots? that's a right bugger.

---

Thats hilarious. Nice job on that one. I am sure they will have an extention to buy. :D
Bipper

the problem is that they had to use the same processor in both ps1 and ps2 otherwise the software would not be compatible with the hardware

Fithos: Emulation :D

Bipper

Emulation would work, but everthing i have seen says that sony did use the same processor in both systems. that was also my problem with the xbox. they took the greatest processing chip in the world and used about 2% of it in a system.

wasn't the ps2 processor the emotion engine? and isn't the ps3 processor the cell? they use different processors (unless they put the old ones in there as well).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

What I am saying, is that your pc and home theatre will be SEPERATE. While yes, gaming puts more of a strain on your PC - your pc is a more rounded machine.

---

And I'm saying in another few console generations (10-15 years), they're going to be NOT seperate. These days the only reason the PC is a more well rounded machine is because consoles don't have OSs meant for general use. However, the Xbox360 is going to have an OS meant for managing multimedia files. If it can do that, it can also manage other files such as documents with no problem. At that point all MS has to do is add multi-tasking support (which it might have for all I know), port Office and voila, everything you can do on a PC you can also do on a console. Heck, it wouldn't suprise me if sometime soon somebody managed to get a game console running as a network server. Why? Because they can.

Quote:

---

For instance; with out tweaking a computer - a box with equal specs to an xBOX will not play the games nearly as well. (Kinda a bad example as the xbox isnt the most efficiant horse - but still true enough)

---

Well, barring the fact that you CAN'T make an equivalent computer since everything is proprietary (128 bit CPUs don't even exist yet in home computers), and the fact that the xbox has pretty weak specs to begin with (128 bit CPU + 64 bit system bus = gimped console), the ONLY thing that's really gonna kill the performance of the system is the OS. Windows is a huge OS, while the Xbox OS is proprietary so it only calls up the functions it needs. You can easily do this in Linux too. Now let's look at the Xbox360's specs. It has 512 GB of RAM, that'll run Windows XP as well as anything else you want to run. At that point your argument becomes invalid because the console itself is powerful enough to run non-native functions. If Microsoft makes another console I can guarantee you it'll be running a form of Windows visibly.

Look, I don't know why you're in such denial about this. I'm not saying that in the future, Microsoft will be the only company in the world and they'll make only one machine and it will be a PC. I'm just saying that very soon, we're going to stop differentiating between game consoles and computers. It's already happening with the concept of a media center (media centers, btw, are NOT cheap, proprietary devices). The set top box is going to be a reality, and it's going to really phase out the need to differentiate. Still don't believe me? Just look at the PSX, just look at the Panasonic Q, just look at Microsoft's plans for the different models of Xbox. Just look at the PSP. Just look at how console manufacturers lure gamers into brand loyalty by cramming their consoles full of features that your PC was capable of 5 years ago. Just look at the way computer manufacturers make computers specifically geared towards gamers, even the cases are blatantly made to look more fun and game like. Just look at how OSs have become increasingly more focused on handling multimedia.

Quote:

---

edit: I do think that the console will evolve into the media stronghold though - whil hopfully keeping itself propitory. If multiple companies run in demainding that different (ehll even file) types get supported the machine will slowly become less efficiant. Keeping your PC (used for multiple and often important things) seperate from your media box would be essencial.

---

The more multimedia functions a game console adopts, the more expensive it is. The "do everything box" isn't going to be cheap. Again, look at how a media center version of a game console simply costs much more than the game console only version. This has always been the case. Of course, as technology becomes older it gets cheaper. This is why consoles are only now starting to feature things that computers have been doing for a while now. The ONLY exception to this is the use of Blu-Rays discs/HD-DVDs, and I imagine that's going to hit Sony and Microsoft right in the wallet (not that they care). You'll see though. It's just going to get more and more to the point where there's no real difference anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fithos

the problem is that they had to use the same processor in both ps1 and ps2 otherwise the software would not be compatible with the hardware

---

Nah, the hardware between the two is different. Backwards compatability is acheived by emulation.

can i do the i was right dance now?

about the single pc/console thing.

apparently the psp has the possibilty to be ran as a pda with works type software.

Djzen: Let me get this straight you think you are just going to have one computer in your house in the future? I think that is a brave assumption. A do everything box would not be a console, but a computer. Consoles mean specilized computer.

I do believe that we will have more of a Media Console, but it would be kept seperate form your pc. I also think that the house will be more networked and consist of many small computers that are networked together.

Quote:

---

Heck, it wouldn't suprise me if sometime soon somebody managed to get a game console running as a network server. Why?

---

I have my xbox running a webserver; which turns the console into a pc. I can run open office and several other standard programs on it.

Quote:

---

It has 512 GB of RAM, that'll run Windows XP as well as anything else you want to run

---

512 MB, I know it was prolly a typo but :) just thought I woul correct it so no one gets too exited :D As for the section it is in, yes a game console can be powered to no extent. This is getting away from my regular argument as weather consoles will exist or not. No matter how powerful these Media Box's become; there will be a company making consoles out there that are cheaper, and more user friendly.

When you add a billion multimedia features to a console it will require more to run it. more power, but still staying priorety, makes it still a console.

Quote:

---

Look, I don't know why you're in such denial about this.

---

I am not in denial, I am sticking with my theory and guns as I have a first person view of the industry and how it is evolving. To say I am denial make it sound like you know the future, and none of us know where this is going. It will go where ever the consumer brings it. Sure you may be able to buy a $334234 propitary PC/console for you home theater system, but there would be so many dissadvantages that consumers will not take in easily. Repairs, cost, upgrades, maintanence, troubleshooting, etc.

I just dont see people pumping everything into one machine that does everything, (Console or PC defined i dont care) When they will want to keep thier home theatre and thier pc life seperate. The game pc may do nearly everything, but the pc will still prolly be more diverse and extensive machine all together.

I do agree with your vision to an extent. I am sure that is what the corporations would want. To kill off a pc type device that is so open to different developers, and turn the industry into more of a propiatory setup where they would have more control.

I just envision a house where buisness and pleasure are strictly seperated. With satelite offices being run more and more at home, people will definatley want to keep thier office pc's or banking accounts seperate from thier media boxes. Several people whom I build new computers for, i tell they to use thier old one strickly for bills and keep it off and offline as much as possible. Keep it seperate - keep it safe.

The more a game machine can do the more it will cost (we agree on this) but as nintendo's belief lies, gaming consoles should be a cheaper and simpler solution to play video games. In saying that, I think pc and consoles will never be the same thing.

Bipper

ps sorry if i danced around a bit, but i am extremley tired atm :) just get slap me back inline if need be :D

We have 2 computers, xbox, gamecube, and the slim ps2(that thing is nice :) ) I've been playing games for almost 20 years now and I believe not one system is better than the other. I bought my first broadband PC in 2000 so I could play Ultima Online,the xbox so I could play Morrowind, the original PS2 so I could play GTA Vice city, and my wife wanted the gamecube for Animal Crossing. It all depends on what you want to play.

just buy a decent pc and a svhs lead then you can play all the pc games on the big tv and all the ps1 games on the newest epsxe open gl 2 plugin with dx 9 effects woot :P

Lingo > directx!

Shubah!

Bipper