Death of PCs? Nope, Now It'sThe Death of Consoles

[NV55]

http://www.edge-online.com/features/online-execs-talk-death-consoles

Online Execs Talk Death of Consoles

The traditional videogame console format came under attack during a
panel discussion at BMO Capital Markets' Interactive Entertainment
Conference in New York on Thursday.

Alex St. John, the WildTangent chairman who's made no secret about his
stance on the current console model, hammered home his opinion that
the console platform is doomed.

"I think you're looking at the last generation of consoles. I don't
think Sony or Microsoft is going to make another console. The problem
is that great graphics, which is what used to differentiate a console,
are a commodity. Everybody's got it. You can't buy a PC that doesn't
have Xbox or Nintendo-quality graphics anymore."

He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

Hilmar Pétursson, CEO of EVE Online developer CCP chimed in, "Really
the only value proposition of the console was the lack of piracy on
the console versus the PC." But he claimed console gaming is losing
that feather in its cap, noting how online PC gaming is much more
piracy-resistant than packaged gaming.

Both St. John and Pétursson's businesses are PC-centric, so their
slant away from console gaming may be expected. But Lars Buttler, CEO
of online PC and console developer/publisher Trion World Networks also
noted pitfalls of the console gaming business.

"You also have these huge markets in Asia, Eastern Europe and
everywhere else that really don't give a damn about consoles. They're
all PC online," he said. "Once you run your big games completely
server-side there is really not much need for any specific box [such
as a console]."

He didn't downplay consumers' desire to play a game in a living room
setting, but suggested that gaming technology will become so
commonplace, dedicated gaming consoles as we know them will become a
thing of the past.

"The console is as great of an input/output and rendering device as
the PC, and if somebody prefers to play a server-based game on the
console, we should absolutely let them do it. So it's actually not
either/or. But the 'consoles,' the 'PCs,' those things that used to be
called 'platforms' will be reduced to input/output and rendering
'devices.'

"The real platform is powerful servers and broadband."

Ken Ripley, EVP of sales for in-game ad firm IGA Worldwide came to
consoles' defense, saying the current platforms are centered around
consumers more interested in a general entertainment experience rather
than core gaming.

"If we think about what's already in peoples' homes, which are 40-,
50-, 60-inch HD televisions centered around a stereo receiver with
Dolby 5.1 digital sound, and maybe one of those theater chairs, people
want to spend time in front of that kind of entertainment
experience. ... As far as entertainment is concerned, there isn't too
much more entertaining on that kind of home theater setup than playing
a console game."

St. John fired back, saying, "The illusion or the notion of the TV as
some sort of religious experience is false... Most console gamers or
kids play on their own TV sets in their own bedrooms ... Screens are
no longer an extraordinarily rare or scarce thing that you can only
find in the living room."

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have made console connectivity more than
just a bullet point this generation. But any PC on the market today
comes with the hardware and the assumption that a consumer will
connect it to a network. Consoles are still a long way off from PC-
like broadband penetration, and many in the industry see a high rate
of connectivity as essential for future business models.

"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

"If you believe that the next business model for gaming is online
models, the MMOs and the advertising, you also believe that you're not
going to see a console business going forward," argued St. John,
"because it can't compete. It doesn't make sense in a community-based
gaming world."

However, Buttler said that there's a reason that most console gamers
don't connect: they simply don't have a reason to.

"What reason do you have today to really connect your console? There
are no large scale, massively-multiplayer persistent, dynamic content
applications on the console today," he said.

IGA's Ripley strongly disagreed with the notion: "Why would somebody
connect?" he asked rhetorically. "You've got a Trojan Horse in the
living room now. You've got a digital device with a huge amount of
memory and a lot of processing power that as we speak, can download HD
movies, rent them, purchase games from them, download additional songs
for Guitar Hero or Rock Band straight into your game. So there's all
kinds of advantages and great attributes for why you would want to be
connected right now, and I'll emphasize right now."

But St. John was unmoved. "I don't think that the economics for the
console business as we know it works viably anymore. I think you're
probably not going to see Sony or Microsoft eager to make any
announcements about launching another generation in the next few
years..."

[Andrew]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:23:38 -0800 (PST), NV55 <***@mail.com>
wrote:

<other hogwash snipped>

Post by NV55
"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

So how comes there are about 12 million XBox Live users on a console
base of about 24 million units?

What a complete load of tripe.

[The dog from that film you saw]

Post by Andrew
<other hogwash snipped>

Post by NV55
"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

So how comes there are about 12 million XBox Live users on a console
base of about 24 million units?
What a complete load of tripe.

and how come the sales of pc games are falling year on year while those on
consoles are rising?

[ThealMIGHTYN]

On Nov 15, 12:13 pm, "The dog from that film you saw"

Post by The dog from that film you saw

Post by Andrew
<other hogwash snipped>

Post by NV55
"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

So how comes there are about 12 million XBox Live users on a console
base of about 24 million units?
What a complete load of tripe.

and how come the sales of pc games are falling year on year while those on
consoles are rising?

The two really outspoken computer gaming guys in the article are
focused on online PC gaming which is not tracked in sales by groups
like NPD. I felt the same way a year ago but there are a lot of
computer games out there that never see a store shelf.

[Jordan]

Post by Andrew
<other hogwash snipped>

Post by NV55
"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

So how comes there are about 12 million XBox Live users on a console
base of about 24 million units?
What a complete load of tripe.

I think he's counting the 33 million Wii's that have no effective
online service to actually connect to.

- Jordan

[Walter Mitty]

Post by Andrew
<other hogwash snipped>

Post by NV55
"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

So how comes there are about 12 million XBox Live users on a console
base of about 24 million units?
What a complete load of tripe.

This St John guy appears to know nothing at all about the subject. Truly
amazing.

[ThealMIGHTYN]

Post by Andrew
<other hogwash snipped>

Post by NV55
"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

So how comes there are about 12 million XBox Live users on a console
base of about 24 million units?
What a complete load of tripe.

While I agree with your sentiments, let's not forget that this St.
John guy said the vast majority of CONSOLES (not a specific console)
will never be plugged into broadband by 2012.

There are still many people playing Playstation 2 games and the
penetration of online for Wiis and Playstation 3s isn't as great as
for the Xbox 360.

[Jordan]

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

That's because of the subscription fee. Compare the sales of the
software itself and get back to me. He should also try naming another
successful MMO. Enter the Matrix? Tabula Rasa? Age of Conan? How's
that working out? Oh yeah... it's not...

- Jordan

[NiGHTS]

Post by Jordan

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

That's because of the subscription fee. Compare the sales of the
software itself and get back to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't make more money than every other
*PC* game combined as well. People touting the "healthy" state of PC
gaming always point to the revenue of WoW neglecting to mention that's a
huge market only devoting their time to *one* game and paying their
money to *one* company. And unless you're the company in question that
doesn't sound very appealing.

[Rich Hutnik]

Post by Jordan

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

That's because of the subscription fee. Compare the sales of the
software itself and get back to me. He should also try naming another
successful MMO. Enter the Matrix? Tabula Rasa? Age of Conan? How's
that working out? Oh yeah... it's not...
- Jordan

It is apparently a common mental disorder at plagues entrepreneurs,
athletes, performing artist and the PC game industry. One exception
makes it big and everyone thinks they will be the next one. They all
want to be the top game, seeing an exception example, rather than just
having sustainable profitability. I do believe Second Life, which is
free, is an example of one of these. Runescape is another. There are
others out there also. But, everyone keeps seeing World of Warcraft,
and thinking they will have the next one.

- Rich

[ThealMIGHTYN]

Post by Rich Hutnik

Post by Jordan

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

That's because of the subscription fee. Compare the sales of the
software itself and get back to me. He should also try naming another
successful MMO. Enter the Matrix? Tabula Rasa? Age of Conan? How's
that working out? Oh yeah... it's not...
- Jordan

It is apparently a common mental disorder at plagues entrepreneurs,
athletes, performing artist and the PC game industry.  One exception
makes it big and everyone thinks they will be the next one.  They all
want to be the top game, seeing an exception example, rather than just
having sustainable profitability.  I do believe Second Life, which is
free, is an example of one of these.  Runescape is another.  There are
others out there also.  But, everyone keeps seeing World of Warcraft,
and thinking they will have the next one.

While I think their idea that console gaming should just disappear
altogether is rather absurd, they do have a point about the success of
online gaming.

World of Warcraft is an exception as far as the size of the financial
intake but there are many online games that earn a lot of revenue
considering that they only need to focus on their one territory
instead of supporting gamers the world over.

[ThealMIGHTYN]

Post by Jordan

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

That's because of the subscription fee. Compare the sales of the
software itself and get back to me.

Does it matter whether the revenue came from a monthly subscription
fee or a piece of packaged software? Revenue is revenue. Subscription-
based gaming is a gold mine - the company doesn't have to really do
much development and keeps raking in dough month in and month out.

Why do you think companies tried so hard to develope an MMORPG for the
consoles?

Post by Jordan
He should also try naming another
successful MMO. Enter the Matrix? Tabula Rasa? Age of Conan? How's
that working out? Oh yeah... it's not...

Pick and choose any of the massively popular online games in Europe
and Asia...

PC gaming is vastly more popular than console gaming in those
continents.

[Goro]

Post by ThealMIGHTYN

Post by Jordan

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

That's because of the subscription fee. Compare the sales of the
software itself and get back to me.

Does it matter whether the revenue came from a monthly subscription
fee or a piece of packaged software? Revenue is revenue. Subscription-
based gaming is a gold mine - the company doesn't have to really do
much development and keeps raking in dough month in and month out.
Why do you think companies tried so hard to develope an MMORPG for the
consoles?

I think companies should be quite wary about their efforts in this
area. It seems like subscription model is great b/c the revenue
stream is constant and over the lifespan of a game, the profits could
be huge. BUT, for the consumer, there are fixed commodities (time,
$). Moreso than for standalone. To subscribe (say) $15-$20/month for
an online game and play it (say) 50hrs that month might be good value,
but adding another online game makes it $30-$40/month and probably the
same hrs played. Additionally, it cannibalizes the one game and your
advancement in that game for the other. If there are (say) 10
companies with MMORPGs vying for attention, then i don't see many(if
any) consumers concurrently subscribing to more than 2 and many to not
sub to more than 1 at a time.

If so, then it's just allocation of these subscription dollars, which
may be good for the consumer in that it will force more enticements on
a more rapid basis, but may not be the huge windfall that other
companies expect. They shouldn't expect to equal WoW earnings even if
they create a game as popular, i think.

It may also be that they need to create MMORPGs that target a
different audience that aren't already subscribing. But i'm not sure
that you get as vibrant, as vocal, as fixated, as motivated, as die-
hard loyal a consumer compared to the WoW ones.

While i wouldn't doubt that there could be other online franchises of
varying success, i doubt that any of them will destroy the console
market.

-goro-

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Goro

Post by ThealMIGHTYN

Post by Jordan

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

That's because of the subscription fee. Compare the sales of the
software itself and get back to me.

Does it matter whether the revenue came from a monthly subscription
fee or a piece of packaged software? Revenue is revenue. Subscription-
based gaming is a gold mine - the company doesn't have to really do
much development and keeps raking in dough month in and month out.
Why do you think companies tried so hard to develope an MMORPG for the
consoles?

I think companies should be quite wary about their efforts in this
area.  It seems like subscription model is great b/c the revenue
stream is constant and over the lifespan of a game, the profits could
be huge.  BUT, for the consumer, there are fixed commodities (time,
$).  Moreso than for standalone.  To subscribe (say) $15-$20/month for
an online game and play it (say) 50hrs that month might be good value,
but adding another online game makes it $30-$40/month and probably the
same hrs played.  Additionally, it cannibalizes the one game and your
advancement in that game for the other.    If there are (say) 10
companies with MMORPGs vying for attention, then i don't see many(if
any) consumers concurrently subscribing to more than 2 and many to not
sub to more than 1 at a time.
If so, then it's just allocation of these subscription dollars, which
may be good for the consumer in that it will force more enticements on
a more rapid basis, but may not be the huge windfall that other
companies expect.  They shouldn't expect to equal WoW earnings even if
they create a game as popular, i think.
It may also be that they need to create MMORPGs that target a
different audience that aren't already subscribing.  But i'm not sure
that you get as vibrant, as vocal, as fixated, as motivated, as die-
hard loyal a consumer compared to the WoW ones.
While i wouldn't doubt that there could be other online franchises of
varying success, i doubt that any of them will destroy the console
market.
-goro

I agree with your statements. I was just pointing out the reasons why
it was irrelevant whether the revenue came from subscriptions or from
packaged software sales in a discussion about revenues.

[Doug Jacobs]

Post by Jordan

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

That's because of the subscription fee. Compare the sales of the
software itself and get back to me. He should also try naming another
successful MMO. Enter the Matrix? Tabula Rasa? Age of Conan? How's
that working out? Oh yeah... it's not...

You missed the obvious rimshot by naming EVE Online ;)

[Tim O]

Post by NV55
"I think you're looking at the last generation of consoles. I don't
think Sony or Microsoft is going to make another console. The problem
is that great graphics, which is what used to differentiate a console,
are a commodity. Everybody's got it. You can't buy a PC that doesn't
have Xbox or Nintendo-quality graphics anymore."

What? Did great graphics ever differentiate consoles? The gaming end
of the PC market has been better for as long as I can remember. Pretty
much all console advances were copied from successes of the PC market.
With DVD drives, 3D graphics, hard drives, internet access and online
multiplayer, the consoles only remaining limitation is weak controls.

Consoles aren't dying, they're morphing back into the sum of their
component parts... PC's.

[CJM]

Post by Tim O
What? Did great graphics ever differentiate consoles? The gaming end
of the PC market has been better for as long as I can remember. Pretty
much all console advances were copied from successes of the PC market.
With DVD drives, 3D graphics, hard drives, internet access and online
multiplayer, the consoles only remaining limitation is weak controls.

QFT.

When a console comes out, it's typically equivalent to higher-end PC
graphics, but within 6 months they are already a step behind. 2 years down
the line, they are lower-mid range.

Control systems are the other obvious weak point. Console fans will point
out that there are keyboards and mice available for some consoles, but
nobody has them so games are not developed with that in mind. There are no
technical reasons why console players can't mingle with PC players online -
but they'd get creamed because of the relative control systems.

Post by Tim O
Consoles aren't dying, they're morphing back into the sum of their
component parts... PC's.

QFT.

The only way for consoles to improve is to become more and more like PCs,
until in essence, you have a locked-down PC that is subsidised by the OEM in
return for a licence fee premium added to games.

[Jonah Falcon]

Um, nope. Having an inexpensive game machine which you use your big
television screen with NEVER GO AWAY.

Can you imagine playing Rock Band 2 on a monitor with friends? (laugh)

"NV55" <***@mail.com> wrote in message news:90ce1e18-0eb9-4117-8079-***@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.edge-online.com/features/online-execs-talk-death-consoles

Online Execs Talk Death of Consoles

The traditional videogame console format came under attack during a
panel discussion at BMO Capital Markets' Interactive Entertainment
Conference in New York on Thursday.

Alex St. John, the WildTangent chairman who's made no secret about his
stance on the current console model, hammered home his opinion that
the console platform is doomed.

"I think you're looking at the last generation of consoles. I don't
think Sony or Microsoft is going to make another console. The problem
is that great graphics, which is what used to differentiate a console,
are a commodity. Everybody's got it. You can't buy a PC that doesn't
have Xbox or Nintendo-quality graphics anymore."

He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

Hilmar Pétursson, CEO of EVE Online developer CCP chimed in, "Really
the only value proposition of the console was the lack of piracy on
the console versus the PC." But he claimed console gaming is losing
that feather in its cap, noting how online PC gaming is much more
piracy-resistant than packaged gaming.

Both St. John and Pétursson's businesses are PC-centric, so their
slant away from console gaming may be expected. But Lars Buttler, CEO
of online PC and console developer/publisher Trion World Networks also
noted pitfalls of the console gaming business.

"You also have these huge markets in Asia, Eastern Europe and
everywhere else that really don't give a damn about consoles. They're
all PC online," he said. "Once you run your big games completely
server-side there is really not much need for any specific box [such
as a console]."

He didn't downplay consumers' desire to play a game in a living room
setting, but suggested that gaming technology will become so
commonplace, dedicated gaming consoles as we know them will become a
thing of the past.

"The console is as great of an input/output and rendering device as
the PC, and if somebody prefers to play a server-based game on the
console, we should absolutely let them do it. So it's actually not
either/or. But the 'consoles,' the 'PCs,' those things that used to be
called 'platforms' will be reduced to input/output and rendering
'devices.'

"The real platform is powerful servers and broadband."

Ken Ripley, EVP of sales for in-game ad firm IGA Worldwide came to
consoles' defense, saying the current platforms are centered around
consumers more interested in a general entertainment experience rather
than core gaming.

"If we think about what's already in peoples' homes, which are 40-,
50-, 60-inch HD televisions centered around a stereo receiver with
Dolby 5.1 digital sound, and maybe one of those theater chairs, people
want to spend time in front of that kind of entertainment
experience. ... As far as entertainment is concerned, there isn't too
much more entertaining on that kind of home theater setup than playing
a console game."

St. John fired back, saying, "The illusion or the notion of the TV as
some sort of religious experience is false... Most console gamers or
kids play on their own TV sets in their own bedrooms ... Screens are
no longer an extraordinarily rare or scarce thing that you can only
find in the living room."

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have made console connectivity more than
just a bullet point this generation. But any PC on the market today
comes with the hardware and the assumption that a consumer will
connect it to a network. Consoles are still a long way off from PC-
like broadband penetration, and many in the industry see a high rate
of connectivity as essential for future business models.

"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

"If you believe that the next business model for gaming is online
models, the MMOs and the advertising, you also believe that you're not
going to see a console business going forward," argued St. John,
"because it can't compete. It doesn't make sense in a community-based
gaming world."

However, Buttler said that there's a reason that most console gamers
don't connect: they simply don't have a reason to.

"What reason do you have today to really connect your console? There
are no large scale, massively-multiplayer persistent, dynamic content
applications on the console today," he said.

IGA's Ripley strongly disagreed with the notion: "Why would somebody
connect?" he asked rhetorically. "You've got a Trojan Horse in the
living room now. You've got a digital device with a huge amount of
memory and a lot of processing power that as we speak, can download HD
movies, rent them, purchase games from them, download additional songs
for Guitar Hero or Rock Band straight into your game. So there's all
kinds of advantages and great attributes for why you would want to be
connected right now, and I'll emphasize right now."

But St. John was unmoved. "I don't think that the economics for the
console business as we know it works viably anymore. I think you're
probably not going to see Sony or Microsoft eager to make any
announcements about launching another generation in the next few
years..."

[Tim O]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:07:23 -0500, "Jonah Falcon"

Post by Jonah Falcon
Can you imagine playing Rock Band 2 on a monitor with friends? (laugh)

Nope. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine people playing that even
having friends.

I have a 52" LCD TV that easily hooks up to a TV with a wireless mouse
and keyboard. The computer room is kind of my escape room, but I can
and have hooked the PC up to that TV with minimal effort, so its not a
real exclusive to the console.
Crysis Warhead looks amazing on there too. Better than anything a
console can put out.

(This is where you argue about the price, because there is no argument
for the superiority of the hardware).

[Luther Root]

Post by Tim O
Crysis Warhead looks amazing on there too. Better than anything a
console can put out.

And what percentage of PCs can run Crysis Warhead?

Answer: Less than 5 per cent sold in the 2 years.

[Tim O]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:24:52 +1100, Luther Root

Post by Luther Root

Post by Tim O
Crysis Warhead looks amazing on there too. Better than anything a
console can put out.

And what percentage of PCs can run Crysis Warhead?
Answer: Less than 5 per cent sold in the 2 years.

Mine, which is the only one I care about. Cue the price defense, even
though he snipped my comment out. That didn't take long.

I built my PC (3ghz dual core/3gig RAM/8800GT) for about 600 bucks.
Thats not too far outside the console realm. If you buy enough games,
it could almost end up as a wash. Every new 360 and PS3 game starts
out at least 10 bucks higher than the PC versions.

[Luther Root]

Post by Tim O
Mine, which is the only one I care about.

It must be a very lonely existence.

Cue the price defense, even

Post by Tim O
though he snipped my comment out. That didn't take long.

Direct me to the part of my post where I discused price.

Post by Tim O
I built my PC (3ghz dual core/3gig RAM/8800GT) for about 600 bucks.

However, if you insist........

Post by Tim O
Thats not too far outside the console realm. If you buy enough games,
it could almost end up as a wash.

No it isn't because I bet you'll dishing out another 600 bucks before
the next-gen of console is out.

[Tim O]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:39:00 +1100, Luther Root

Post by Luther Root

Post by Tim O
Mine, which is the only one I care about.

It must be a very lonely existence.

I don't consider computers and games my friends, so no, it isn't.
Sorry about your luck.

[Rich Hutnik]

Post by Tim O

Post by Luther Root
And what percentage of PCs can run Crysis Warhead?
Answer: Less than 5 per cent sold in the 2 years.

Mine, which is the only one I care about. Cue the price defense, even
though he snipped my comment out. That didn't take long.
I built my PC (3ghz dual core/3gig RAM/8800GT) for about 600 bucks.
Thats not too far outside the console realm. If you buy enough games,
it could almost end up as a wash. Every new 360 and PS3 game starts
out at least 10 bucks higher than the PC versions.

"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche. Wii games sell a lot more. The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it. And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people. The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important. Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics. It isn't
graphics. And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game. Kudos!"

- Rich

[Andrew]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:00:44 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche. Wii games sell a lot more. The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it. And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people. The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important. Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics. It isn't
graphics. And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game. Kudos!"

The Wii appeals to casual gamers, and sells bucket loads of systems,
but to most it is the "Wii Sports" or "Wii Fit" machine, it has by far
the lowest attach rate of all the current crop of consoles.

The 360 is bought by established gamers for whom graphics are an
issue.

Personally I love the graphics and games of my 360, and am really not
interested in upgrading my PC at great expense to run over hyped
graphics demos like Crysis.

[ThealMIGHTYN]

Post by Andrew
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:00:44 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche.  Wii games sell a lot more.  The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it.  And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people.  The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important.  Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics.  It isn't
graphics.  And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game.  Kudos!"

The Wii appeals to casual gamers, and sells bucket loads of systems,
but to most it is the "Wii Sports" or "Wii Fit" machine, it has by far
the lowest attach rate of all the current crop of consoles.

How do you define "by far?"

The Wii's attach rate is actually higher than the Playstation 3's
right now. Of course, once you take away Wii Sports, it drops down a
bit but no enough to say it's losing "by far." It's a difference of
0.7 games per console whereas the 360 leads the Playstation 3 by 2.3
games per console.

Post by Andrew
The 360 is bought by established gamers for whom graphics are an
issue.
Personally I love the graphics and games of my 360, and am really not
interested in upgrading my PC at great expense to run over hyped
graphics demos like Crysis.
--
Andrew, contact viahttp://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

[Tim O]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:00:44 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche. Wii games sell a lot more. The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it. And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people. The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important. Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics. It isn't
graphics. And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game. Kudos!"
- Rich

I actually did it so I could run hundreds of games.
Now go wiggle your remote in the air and pretend you're actually doing
something more evolved than building a PC.

[Rich Hutnik]

Post by Andrew
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:00:44 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche.  Wii games sell a lot more.  The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it.  And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people.  The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important.  Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics.  It isn't
graphics.  And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game.  Kudos!"
- Rich

I actually did it so I could run hundreds of games.
Now go wiggle your remote in the air and pretend you're actually doing
something more evolved than building a PC.

40% RTS, 40% FPS, 15% Flash games, 5% Driving games, and 5%
multiplayer. Hundreds of the same type of game.

Saying you "Build your PC..." is all one needs to know why PC gaming
is no longer mainstream and less than 20% the size of the console
business. Well, unless you count Freecell and Bejeweled as PC gaming.

- Rich

[ThealMIGHTYN]

Post by Rich Hutnik

Post by Andrew
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:00:44 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche.  Wii games sell a lot more.  The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it.  And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people.  The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important.  Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics.  It isn't
graphics.  And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game.  Kudos!"
- Rich

I actually did it so I could run hundreds of games.
Now go wiggle your remote in the air and pretend you're actually doing
something more evolved than building a PC.

40% RTS, 40% FPS, 15% Flash games, 5% Driving games, and 5%
multiplayer.  Hundreds of the same type of game.
Saying you "Build your PC..." is all one needs to know why PC gaming
is no longer mainstream and less than 20% the size of the console
business.  Well, unless you count Freecell and Bejeweled as PC gaming.

Aren't they? Bejeweled is also Xbox 360 gaming...

PC gaming is no longer mainstream in the U.S. It's more mainstream
than console gaming is in pretty much every other territory in the
world (except Japan). There's also a lot more revenue in it in the
rest of the world...

[ThealMIGHTYN]

Post by Andrew
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:00:44 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche.  Wii games sell a lot more.  The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it.  And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people.  The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important.  Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics.  It isn't
graphics.  And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game.  Kudos!"
- Rich

I actually did it so I could run hundreds of games.
Now go wiggle your remote in the air and pretend you're actually doing
something more evolved than building a PC.

Why waste the time, effort and money to build a quality gaming PC when
most of the PC games that aren't available on one gaming console or
another aren't that good?

Being enough of a computer geek to put together a few parts is hardly
something to brag about.

[ThealMIGHTYN]

Post by Rich Hutnik

Post by Tim O

Post by Luther Root
And what percentage of PCs can run Crysis Warhead?
Answer: Less than 5 per cent sold in the 2 years.

Mine, which is the only one I care about. Cue the price defense, even
though he snipped my comment out. That didn't take long.
I built my PC (3ghz dual core/3gig RAM/8800GT) for about 600 bucks.
Thats not too far outside the console realm. If you buy enough games,
it could almost end up as a wash. Every new 360 and PS3 game starts
out at least 10 bucks higher than the PC versions.

"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche.  Wii games sell a lot more.  The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it.  And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people.  The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important.  Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics.  It isn't
graphics.  And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game.  Kudos!"

And from what I've read and the word-of-mouth I've heard, Crysis isn't
even a great game. Great technology, sure, but no personality, no
spirit. It's the very definition of a tech demo.

[Doug Jacobs]

Post by Rich Hutnik
"I built my PC..." is all you need to say to explain why the PC gaming
industry has shrunk to a niche. Wii games sell a lot more. The Wii
is relatively inexpensive, and people play it. And the 360 is
considered next gen for most people. The price vs performance ratio
is tipping in favor of console gaming, with graphics being less
important. Why do you think the Wii sells like it does? The 360 is
less expensive than it it, and has better graphics. It isn't
graphics. And to say you can run Crisis Warhead is like, "Wow, you
did all that work so you can run ONE game. Kudos!"

Red herring.

Most pre-built PCs are over priced because the margins on hardware are so
slim. What he paid $600 + 2 hours of work to build would easily have cost
him twice that from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.

The other problem is Crysis is only on the PC, so it's like any other
exclusive title. Wanna play? Then you gotta buy the hardware.

Now we can talk about sales and all that, but it's sort of moot as the PC
market has been declining for well over a decade with a few exceptions
like The Sims and WoW.

[Doug Jacobs]

Post by Tim O
I built my PC (3ghz dual core/3gig RAM/8800GT) for about 600 bucks.
Thats not too far outside the console realm. If you buy enough games,
it could almost end up as a wash. Every new 360 and PS3 game starts
out at least 10 bucks higher than the PC versions.

As you point out, even the price points are getting closer and closer.

Although I feel I must mention that while PC titles tend to stay in the
$40-50 range vs. the console's $50-60+, it's also a lot easier to buy used
console games. No store sells used PC games (I've heard it's actually
illegal for some weird reason) and you've also got the problem with the CD
registration key which the console versions don't have.

Either way, I don't believe in paying MSRP for any game - PC or console.
Games drop in price pretty quickly, and with some prudent shopping habits
it's possible to keep the cost of your games to something much more
reasonable - say $20-30 for a title?

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Doug Jacobs

Post by Tim O
I built my PC (3ghz dual core/3gig RAM/8800GT) for about 600 bucks.
Thats not too far outside the console realm. If you buy enough games,
it could almost end up as a wash. Every new 360 and PS3 game starts
out at least 10 bucks higher than the PC versions.

As you point out, even the price points are getting closer and closer.
Although I feel I must mention that while PC titles tend to stay in the
$40-50 range vs. the console's $50-60+, it's also a lot easier to buy used
console games.  No store sells used PC games (I've heard it's actually
illegal for some weird reason) and you've also got the problem with the CD
registration key which the console versions don't have.
Either way, I don't believe in paying MSRP for any game - PC or console.  
Games drop in price pretty quickly, and with some prudent shopping habits
it's possible to keep the cost of your games to something much more
reasonable - say $20-30 for a title?

Or you could just download the games from Usenet or BitTorrent and be
done with it...

[CJM]

Post by Luther Root

Post by Tim O
Crysis Warhead looks amazing on there too. Better than anything a
console can put out.

And what percentage of PCs can run Crysis Warhead?
Answer: Less than 5 per cent sold in the 2 years.

WTF?

The majority of mid-range PC's will run Crysis at higher resolutions and
image quality than any console. Many entry level PCs will run Crysis at a
comparable level to consoles. The key thing to remember is that 'Next Gen'
consoles are last generation-but-one PC hardware.

Even considering the costs of a TV screen with HS resolution (approx
equivalent to mid-range monitor resolution) and they premium on games (> £10
per game), a PC kept reasonably up to date will cost more than your average
console over your typical 3-5yr lifecycle.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with consoles, but to pretend that they
can compete with PC is a fallacy. Consoles are better for kids and casual
users were accessability and usability is more of an issue. More
enthusastic/experienced/hardcore (- choose your preferred term) gamers will
gravitate towards PCs

[Conor]

Post by CJM

Post by Luther Root

Post by Tim O
Crysis Warhead looks amazing on there too. Better than anything a
console can put out.

And what percentage of PCs can run Crysis Warhead?
Answer: Less than 5 per cent sold in the 2 years.

WTF?
The majority of mid-range PC's will run Crysis at higher resolutions and
image quality than any console.

Shame Tomshardware hardware benchmarking disagrees with you. Run and put
a picture on a screen, yes. Run at a decent framerate is another thing
entirely.

[k***@webtv.net]

Bioshock ,nuff said


I remember when Bioshock was first released, every other PC had
problems running it.

Just google it if you don't believe me,there's was tons of forums
talking about the 'failed,glitchy' Bioshock on PC's and everyone
rushing to upgrade their hardware just to run it,while the 360 ran it
fine out of the box. Sure it wasn't true widescreen on the PC and the
sky was falling ,blah blah ,but it ran stellar on the 360 from the get
go.

Do I like PC's ?
ABSOLUTLEY
,but the "insert disc play "ease of consoles attracted me to the
platform and the exclusive titles on the console are a major reason
for me to get a console.

Is the 360 outdated? BIGTIME but damn if playing on LIVE isn't fun as
hell and worry free.

When I bought my 360 in Mar 2006 ,all I did was plug it in and start
playing and its been problem free ever since.

Do I wish I could upgrade everything? YES ,but that's why I'll
eventually get a medium/high end rig,but for now,the 360 is pretty
damn solid for older tech.

But at the end of the day ,isn't a 360 a poor mans PC anyways?

[CJM]

Shame Tomshardware hardware benchmarking disagrees with you. Run and put a
picture on a screen, yes. Run at a decent framerate is another thing
entirely.

Give me a break.

The Xbox 360 only handles 720p - the 1920x1080 uses the internal scaler.

The best PS3s can genuinely handle 1080p, though most use scaling as well.
But there are still too few games being developed in 1080p to take advantage
of the hardware.

Whereas a typical gaming PC has a 22" screen with a native resolution of
1680x1050 (non-interlaced, obviously), and higher-end systems are 1920x1200.
I don't see how you can compare frame rates until you can match the
resolution and quality.

[Andrew]

Post by CJM
The Xbox 360 only handles 720p - the 1920x1080 uses the internal scaler.

Some 360 games are native 1080P, but the vast majority are 720P.

Post by CJM
The best PS3s can genuinely handle 1080p, though most use scaling as well.
But there are still too few games being developed in 1080p to take advantage
of the hardware.

The best PS3's? The is on par with the 360 graphically and so like the
360 can't handle 1080P for much.

Post by CJM
Whereas a typical gaming PC has a 22" screen with a native resolution of
1680x1050 (non-interlaced, obviously), and higher-end systems are 1920x1200.
I don't see how you can compare frame rates until you can match the
resolution and quality.

And how much does a video card cost that can run Crysis at 1920x1200?

Personally I have never given a fig about ultra high resolution
gaming. You may see the difference when standing still, but when I am
in an action game, 720P is quite enough for me.

[CJM]

Post by Andrew
The best PS3's? The is on par with the 360 graphically and so like the
360 can't handle 1080P for much.

The cheaper PS3s apparently dont have the same range of connection options
(DVI/HDMI etc) thus can only do 1080i. [this is 2nd hand info, not from my
personal experience]

Post by Andrew
And how much does a video card cost that can run Crysis at 1920x1200?

Run it? < £100

Run it well? Around £200 IMHO.

Post by Andrew
Personally I have never given a fig about ultra high resolution
gaming. You may see the difference when standing still, but when I am
in an action game, 720P is quite enough for me.

You'll find the best PC (FPS) gamers will have graphics quality set quite
low because the don't want any 'furniture' (grass, bushes etc) obscuring
their view and they want an astronomically high framerate. However, I'm not
a pro gamer so I want it to look purdy without it running like an absolute
dog.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by CJM

Post by Andrew
The best PS3's? The is on par with the 360 graphically and so like the
360 can't handle 1080P for much.

The cheaper PS3s apparently dont have the same range of connection options
(DVI/HDMI etc) thus can only do 1080i. [this is 2nd hand info, not from my
personal experience]

???

Every PS3 has HDMI. No PS3s have DVI connections.

Post by CJM

Post by Andrew
And how much does a video card cost that can run Crysis at 1920x1200?

Run it? < £100
Run it well? Around £200 IMHO.

Post by Andrew
Personally I have never given a fig about ultra high resolution
gaming. You may see the difference when standing still, but when I am
in an action game, 720P is quite enough for me.

You'll find the best PC (FPS) gamers will have graphics quality set quite
low because the don't want any 'furniture' (grass, bushes etc) obscuring
their view and they want an astronomically high framerate. However, I'm not
a pro gamer so I want it to look purdy without it running like an absolute
dog.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by CJM

Shame Tomshardware hardware benchmarking disagrees with you. Run and put a
picture on a screen, yes. Run at a decent framerate is another thing
entirely.

Give me a break.
The Xbox 360 only handles 720p - the 1920x1080 uses the internal scaler.
The best PS3s can genuinely handle 1080p, though most use scaling as well.
But there are still too few games being developed in 1080p to take advantage
of the hardware.
Whereas a typical gaming PC has a 22" screen with a native resolution of
1680x1050 (non-interlaced, obviously), and higher-end systems are 1920x1200.
I don't see how you can compare frame rates until you can match the
resolution and quality.

It doesn't matter how good a picture you're putting up if you don't
have solid framerates.

[The dog from that film you saw]

Post by CJM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with consoles, but to pretend that they
can compete with PC is a fallacy. Consoles are better for kids and casual
users were accessability and usability is more of an issue. More
enthusastic/experienced/hardcore (- choose your preferred term) gamers
will gravitate towards PCs

but what will they play?
i can't be the only one who thinks less and less big budget games are
appearing on the pc these days.
fine if you like niche titles but once upon a time the pc would get big name
games - these are far rarer these days.

[CJM]

Post by The dog from that film you saw
i can't be the only one who thinks less and less big budget games are
appearing on the pc these days.
fine if you like niche titles but once upon a time the pc would get big
name games - these are far rarer these days.

Which big budget game are we missing?

Gears of War 2? Sorely missed? Not by me.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by CJM

Post by The dog from that film you saw
i can't be the only one who thinks less and less big budget games are
appearing on the pc these days.
fine if you like niche titles but once upon a time the pc would get big
name games - these are far rarer these days.

Which big budget game are we missing?
Gears of War 2? Sorely missed? Not by me.

Regardless of how you perceive Gears of War 2, it's a big title.

The problem is that while there are still a slew of great games that
appear on consoles but not on the PC, there aren't a slew of great
games that appear on the PC but not on the consoles.

It wasn't all that long ago that PC and console gaming were separate
and distinct. You had your "PC" games and your "console" games with
nary a crossover. Now, you've got tons of games appearing on every
system imagineable but the PC is starting to lose the edge in terms of
viable exclusives.

There's World of Warcraft and the Sims and that's basically it unless
you start looking at the small little games like Diner Dash,
Bejeweled, etc. (some of which have appeared on consoles or
handhelds).

Crysis is another exclusive but it's hardly a catch. The game
seriously lacks personality and that's reflected in the abysmal sales.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

On Nov 17, 12:19 pm, "The dog from that film you saw"

Post by The dog from that film you saw

Post by CJM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with consoles, but to pretend that they
can compete with PC is a fallacy. Consoles are better for kids and casual
users were accessability and usability is more of an issue. More
enthusastic/experienced/hardcore (- choose your preferred term) gamers
will gravitate towards PCs

but what will they play?
i can't be the only one who thinks less and less big budget games are
appearing on the pc these days.
fine if you like niche titles but once upon a time the pc would get big name
games - these are far rarer these days.

What do you consider "big name games?"

For the longest time, the PC never saw any games that showed up on the
consoles. Slowly, over the past decade, more and more console games
started showing up on consoles and vice versa. Nowadays, it seems
almost every big title is on both the PC and the console platforms.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by CJM

Post by Luther Root

Post by Tim O
Crysis Warhead looks amazing on there too. Better than anything a
console can put out.

And what percentage of PCs can run Crysis Warhead?
Answer: Less than 5 per cent sold in the 2 years.

WTF?
The majority of mid-range PC's will run Crysis at higher resolutions and
image quality than any console. Many entry level PCs will run Crysis at a
comparable level to consoles. The key thing to remember is that 'Next Gen'
consoles are last generation-but-one PC hardware.

A mid-range PC to MOST people is one that they can get from Dell or HP
from $500-800. Entry-level PCs are ones that you get for $200-300.

Very few units in either of these categories would be able to run
Crysis at a level comparable to how it would run on the hardware in an
Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.

Post by CJM
Even considering the costs of a TV screen with HS resolution (approx
equivalent to mid-range monitor resolution) and they premium on games (> £10
per game), a PC kept reasonably up to date will cost more than your average
console over your typical 3-5yr lifecycle.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with consoles, but to pretend that they
can compete with PC is a fallacy. Consoles are better for kids and casual
users were accessability and usability is more of an issue. More
enthusastic/experienced/hardcore (- choose your preferred term) gamers will
gravitate towards PCs

How do you define "compete?" Obviously, you can get a computer with a
much more powerful set of components but that's not the basis of
competition. "Hardcore" PC gaming is shrinking at an alarming rate in
the United States because people realize more and more than the ROI is
just not there.

Most powerful != best

There are plenty of hardcore gamers playing on Xbox Live and the
Playstation Network nowadays. Most of the people I know who own a
console were hardcore PC gamers back in the day and now we're all
gaming with our consoles because of a combination of the variety of
games being more interesting on the console and the much lower
investment (money, time, effort, ease of use, etc.).

There just isn't any reason to spend even $700-800 on a brand new
computer just to play Crysis and Civilization. Even if I were to just
upgrade an old machine with new RAM, a new CPU and a new GPU, I just
wouldn't have an inclination to have to search for good prices on the
parts, wait for them to be delivered to me, open up my machine, put it
all in, and then worry about getting all the ducks lined up.

Sure, I'll save $10 per new release but not all the games I would want
to play on the consoles would even show up on the PC.

It's just not worth it.

[Shawk]

Post by Tim O
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:07:23 -0500, "Jonah Falcon"

Post by Jonah Falcon
Can you imagine playing Rock Band 2 on a monitor with friends? (laugh)

Nope. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine people playing that even
having friends.
I have a 52" LCD TV that easily hooks up to a TV with a wireless mouse
and keyboard. The computer room is kind of my escape room, but I can
and have hooked the PC up to that TV with minimal effort, so its not a
real exclusive to the console.
Crysis Warhead looks amazing on there too. Better than anything a
console can put out.

I've hooked my PC up to my 42" plasma and Crysis etc looks amazing plus
HD at 720p is a lot less demanding on the hardware than my 22" 1680x1050
Sammy in the office/games room (its 1280x720 IIRC).

Problem is of course that I have a family etc and the plasma is for
watching TV and not for playing games. That's what my own room is for.
Its one reason why a console is never going to be an option for me. X
Factor will always win over Far Cry 2 etc in this house... unfortunately

[Doug Jacobs]

Post by Tim O

Post by Jonah Falcon
Can you imagine playing Rock Band 2 on a monitor with friends? (laugh)

Nope. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine people playing that even
having friends.
I have a 52" LCD TV that easily hooks up to a TV with a wireless mouse
and keyboard. The computer room is kind of my escape room, but I can
and have hooked the PC up to that TV with minimal effort, so its not a
real exclusive to the console.
Crysis Warhead looks amazing on there too. Better than anything a
console can put out.
(This is where you argue about the price, because there is no argument
for the superiority of the hardware).

Well, that's a dead horse, and everyone knows it.

However your post just shows that the difference between consoles and PCs
has diminished quite a bit. Even if you look at games that are available
on both the PC and the consoles, the differences in graphics are much
smaller. So much so that most game reviews no longer state a clear winner
between the PC and console version. It really just comes down to your
preferred control scheme, and maybe, gaming preference of monitor vs. TV -
but even there, I can connect my PC and console to a TV or monitor with
equal ease while still getting great graphics.

Then there are those games that are only on a console or the PC. If you
can only afford one platform (a gaming PC vs. a console) these titles
would be the tipping point for you. Otherwise, just pick your game and
start playing.

[Luther Root]

Post by Jonah Falcon
Um, nope. Having an inexpensive game machine which you use your big
television screen with NEVER GO AWAY.

And more importantly than that, does not need to be upgraded every 6-12
months.

[Memnoch]

Post by Luther Root

Post by Jonah Falcon
Um, nope. Having an inexpensive game machine which you use your big
television screen with NEVER GO AWAY.

And more importantly than that, does not need to be upgraded every 6-12
months.

Thats true. But then the games manufacturers are not going to be able to push
the boundaries because the hardware is static. PC developers are continually
pushing what can be done with the latest and greatest hardware, admittedly
sometimes they go too far. Think of it almost like an evolutionary dead end,
whearas the PC can keep evolving.

[k***@webtv.net]

Bioshock ,nuff said

[Les Steel]

Post by k***@webtv.net
Bioshock ,nuff said

What about bioshock?
--
Les

The chief export of Chuck Norris is Pain.

[Wolfing]

Post by Les Steel

Post by k***@webtv.net
Bioshock ,nuff said

What about bioshock?
--

Guess we'll never know, because he said enough :)

[Walter Mitty]

Post by Les Steel

Post by k***@webtv.net
Bioshock ,nuff said

What about bioshock?

You can tell someone let the console kids in :-;

l337!

[Mattinglyfan]

Post by Walter Mitty

Post by Les Steel

Post by k***@webtv.net
Bioshock ,nuff said

What about bioshock?

You can tell someone let the console kids in :-;
l337!

Console "kids"? Who still says crap like l337 and refers to other adults as
"kids".

[Nick Soapdish, Jr.]

Post by Walter Mitty

Post by Les Steel

Post by k***@webtv.net
Bioshock ,nuff said

What about bioshock?

You can tell someone let the console kids in :-;
l337!

Console "kids"?  Who still says crap like l337 and refers to other adults as
"kids".

Who does? PC ubermenschen, didn't you get the memo? They are much
cooler than anyone else because they choose to play games on PCs
rather than consoles. It's the most important factor in determining a
person's worth; forget about raising good kids, career achievements,
having friends, helping the needy, creating art, or any of that other
whack stuff. Come on, get with the program!!!!!!!

[Walter Mitty]

Post by Nick Soapdish, Jr.

Post by Walter Mitty

Post by Les Steel

Post by k***@webtv.net
Bioshock ,nuff said

What about bioshock?

You can tell someone let the console kids in :-;
l337!

Console "kids"?  Who still says crap like l337 and refers to other adults as
"kids".

Who does? PC ubermenschen, didn't you get the memo? They are much
cooler than anyone else because they choose to play games on PCs
rather than consoles. It's the most important factor in determining a
person's worth; forget about raising good kids, career achievements,
having friends, helping the needy, creating art, or any of that other
whack stuff. Come on, get with the program!!!!!!!

What are you talking about?

[Tim O]

Post by Walter Mitty

Post by Nick Soapdish, Jr.
Who does? PC ubermenschen, didn't you get the memo? They are much
cooler than anyone else because they choose to play games on PCs
rather than consoles. It's the most important factor in determining a
person's worth; forget about raising good kids, career achievements,
having friends, helping the needy, creating art, or any of that other
whack stuff. Come on, get with the program!!!!!!!

What are you talking about?

I think he's trying to be funny.
He probably doesn't do any of those things either, but he additionally
can't grasp anything more complex than Super Monkeyball.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Tim O

Post by Walter Mitty

Who does?  PC ubermenschen, didn't you get the memo?  They are much
cooler than anyone else because they choose to play games on PCs
rather than consoles.  It's the most important factor in determining a
person's worth; forget about raising good kids, career achievements,
having friends, helping the needy, creating art, or any of that other
whack stuff.  Come on, get with the program!!!!!!!

What are you talking about?

I think he's trying to be funny.
He probably doesn't do any of those things either, but he additionally
can't grasp anything more complex than Super Monkeyball.

No worse than not being able to grasp anything more complex than
Bejewelled.

[Walter Mitty]

Post by Mattinglyfan

Post by Walter Mitty

Post by Les Steel

Post by k***@webtv.net
Bioshock ,nuff said

What about bioshock?

You can tell someone let the console kids in :-;
l337!

Console "kids"? Who still says crap like l337 and refers to other
adults as "kids".

So, that will be a "whoosh" then.

[CJM]

Post by Walter Mitty

Post by Mattinglyfan
Console "kids"? Who still says crap like l337 and refers to other
adults as "kids".

So, that will be a "whoosh" then.

lol

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Walter Mitty

Post by Les Steel

Post by k***@webtv.net
Bioshock ,nuff said

What about bioshock?

You can tell someone let the console kids in :-;
l337!

It's funny how you talk about "console kids" and then close with l337.

[Conor]

Post by Memnoch
Thats true. But then the games manufacturers are not going to be able to push
the boundaries because the hardware is static.

Rubbish. Even in the last 12 months, they've found stuff they can do
with a PS2.

Post by Memnoch
PC developers are continually
pushing what can be done with the latest and greatest hardware, admittedly
sometimes they go too far.

Whilst having to write in bloat just to allow those with old hardware to
get a picture on the screen.

Also piracy is ridiculously rampant on PCs which is why companies are
saying they're going to stop writing for the platform.

[Shawk]

Post by Conor
Also piracy is ridiculously rampant on PCs which is why companies are
saying they're going to stop writing for the platform.

I met someone recently who has chipped their 360 and buy all games from
friends for around £3 each. I said doesn't that exclude you from
'Live'. They said no because as long as you don't copy MS games then MS
don't seem to care - they're getting their money for the live
subscription. If true I should think that is going to make piracy
rampant on that console and quickly overshadow piracy on PC...

[Conor]

Post by Shawk
I met someone recently who has chipped their 360 and buy all games from
friends for around £3 each. I said doesn't that exclude you from
'Live'. They said no because as long as you don't copy MS games then MS
don't seem to care - they're getting their money for the live
subscription. If true I should think that is going to make piracy
rampant on that console and quickly overshadow piracy on PC...

Then they're fucking idiots. Most of the games on XBL are NOT from
Microsoft. COD and GoW aren't Microsoft games. In fact, apart from Halo,
what is?

[The dog from that film you saw]

Post by Shawk

Post by Conor
Also piracy is ridiculously rampant on PCs which is why companies are
saying they're going to stop writing for the platform.

I met someone recently who has chipped their 360 and buy all games from
friends for around £3 each. I said doesn't that exclude you from 'Live'.
They said no because as long as you don't copy MS games then MS don't seem
to care - they're getting their money for the live subscription. If true
I should think that is going to make piracy rampant on that console and
quickly overshadow piracy on PC...

they have just started kicking people off for it again recently.
keep in mind, microsoft get a payment each time a game is sold - regardless
of who releases it.
same as sony does for ps3 games.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Shawk

Post by Conor
Also piracy is ridiculously rampant on PCs which is why companies are
saying they're going to stop writing for the platform.

I met someone recently who has chipped their 360 and buy all games from
friends for around £3 each. I said doesn't that exclude you from
'Live'. They said no because as long as you don't copy MS games then MS
don't seem to care - they're getting their money for the live
subscription. If true I should think that is going to make piracy
rampant on that console and quickly overshadow piracy on PC...

Not really...

Console gaming is much more mainstream, at least here in the United
States, than PC gaming. Even now, you're more likely to be called a
nerd if you play computer games and more likely to be accepted as cool
if you play console games.

Most console gamers know nothing about modding, chipping, etc. Few
people actually know that you can download game images online, that
there are ways to copy game discs, etc. That sort of thing is much
more the realm of the PC world.

Piracy has been around forever and PC gamers back in the day were an
even more "geek" group than they are nowadays. Pretty much any PC
gamer knows about IRC, BitTorrent, P2P, etc. but good luck finding
very many average consumers who have ever heard of any of those
things.

Regardless of how easy it ever becomes to mod an Xbox 360, piracy will
never run rampant in the console gaming world.

[Memnoch]

Post by Conor

Post by Memnoch
Thats true. But then the games manufacturers are not going to be able to push
the boundaries because the hardware is static.

Rubbish. Even in the last 12 months, they've found stuff they can do
with a PS2.

So when will Far Cry 2 be released for the PS2. Or Crysis. Or Fallout 3. That
was my point. As the hardware improves, games can be created with imroved
fidelity, normally graphically admittedly. And note that I never said they
couldn't do things with the PS2, they just will never, ever be able to create
games for it now that we expect to see on the latest generation of consoles
and the PC. It just isn't good enough. I'm sure they can find no tricks to get
it to do more but it won't be able to cope with the graphical demands that the
gaming community as a whole want.

Post by Conor

Post by Memnoch
PC developers are continually
pushing what can be done with the latest and greatest hardware, admittedly
sometimes they go too far.

Whilst having to write in bloat just to allow those with old hardware to
get a picture on the screen.

Its a shame we get to see so many poor quality ports on the PC, writing games
that a lot of PCs can play standing on their heads. They don't even bother to
improve them to take advantage of superior hardware.

Post by Conor
Also piracy is ridiculously rampant on PCs which is why companies are
saying they're going to stop writing for the platform.

And it isn't on the consoles. If I wanted to I could buy a console and never
pay for another game again. I see it every day. But they still write for the
consoles. Try again.

[Les Steel]

Post by Luther Root

Post by Jonah Falcon
Um, nope. Having an inexpensive game machine which you use your big
television screen with NEVER GO AWAY.

And more importantly than that, does not need to be upgraded every 6-12
months.

Nor do most PCs. I've had the Same overall PC for almost 2 years now,
Have only recently changed the graphics card through choice, rather than
need. I also don't envisage updating the CPU anytime soon either, still
very more than capable for the latest games.

--
Les

Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.

[Conor]

Post by Les Steel

Post by Luther Root

Post by Jonah Falcon
Um, nope. Having an inexpensive game machine which you use your big
television screen with NEVER GO AWAY.

And more importantly than that, does not need to be upgraded every
6-12 months.

Nor do most PCs. I've had the Same overall PC for almost 2 years now,
Have only recently changed the graphics card through choice, rather than
need. I also don't envisage updating the CPU anytime soon either, still
very more than capable for the latest games.

Does it play Crisis at the max resloution your monitor supports with all
the detail turned up to full? Does your PC play all your games at the
max resolution of your monitor with all the details ramped up to full?

[Les Steel]

Post by Conor

Post by Les Steel

Post by Luther Root

Post by Jonah Falcon
Um, nope. Having an inexpensive game machine which you use your big
television screen with NEVER GO AWAY.

And more importantly than that, does not need to be upgraded every
6-12 months.

Nor do most PCs. I've had the Same overall PC for almost 2 years now,
Have only recently changed the graphics card through choice, rather
than need. I also don't envisage updating the CPU anytime soon either,
still very more than capable for the latest games.

Does it play Crisis at the max resloution your monitor supports with all
the detail turned up to full? Does your PC play all your games at the
max resolution of your monitor with all the details ramped up to full?

Yes it most certainly does. Crysis and Crysis Warhead. Fallout 3,
FarCry2, RA3 are the latest games I've bought that are running at the
highest settings at my default max resolution of 1680*1050.

Why wouldn't it!
--
Les

Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the
information he wants.

[Conor]

Post by Les Steel

Post by Conor

Post by Les Steel

Post by Luther Root

Post by Jonah Falcon
Um, nope. Having an inexpensive game machine which you use your big
television screen with NEVER GO AWAY.

And more importantly than that, does not need to be upgraded every
6-12 months.

Nor do most PCs. I've had the Same overall PC for almost 2 years now,
Have only recently changed the graphics card through choice, rather
than need. I also don't envisage updating the CPU anytime soon
either, still very more than capable for the latest games.

Does it play Crisis at the max resloution your monitor supports with
all the detail turned up to full? Does your PC play all your games at
the max resolution of your monitor with all the details ramped up to
full?

Yes it most certainly does. Crysis and Crysis Warhead. Fallout 3,
FarCry2, RA3 are the latest games I've bought that are running at the
highest settings at my default max resolution of 1680*1050.
Why wouldn't it!

Because Crysis needs some silly specs to and apparently the only
graphics cards capable of running full tilt are the very high end ones.

[CJM]

Because Crysis needs some silly specs to and apparently the only graphics
cards capable of running full tilt are the very high end ones.

A very good point.

Crysis goes beyond even current high-end technology. At low-medium settings
it is a little better than either the PS3 or 360, at med-high it is way
better and at Ultra it cripples current hardware. In 6 months to a year,
many people will be able to max-out Crysis (if they choose to keep up with
technology).

If you don't want to keep up with technology in any way, choosing a console
is potentially a very sensible option, but you will be settling for a lesser
experience. A perfectly valid choice for many.

[Tim O]

Post by Les Steel
Nor do most PCs. I've had the Same overall PC for almost 2 years now,
Have only recently changed the graphics card through choice, rather than
need. I also don't envisage updating the CPU anytime soon either, still
very more than capable for the latest games.

The 6 month upgrade cycle is an old chestnut of a console argument
that has a center of truth from way back in the 486 and Pentium 1 days
when hardware technology was exploding at an exponential pace.
I'll confess to buying more than one $300 graphics card in a year back
then, but the upgrade argument is mostly a dead end now.
My current PC is a year old right about now. My wife bought most of
the parts as my Christmas present and I got them last Thanksgiving to
enjoy before the Christmas hustle.

Even though the 8800GT has been passed as the top of the graphics
heap, it still runs nearly everything at my LCD's native res of
1680x1050. I'm feeling zero pressure to upgrade after a full year.
Perhaps by the end of next year, I'll want to upgrade the video card
but it will be a voluntary upgrade, not mandatory.

[Luther Root]

Post by Tim O
I'm feeling zero pressure to upgrade after a full year.
Perhaps by the end of next year, I'll want to upgrade the video card
but it will be a voluntary upgrade, not mandatory.

Keep on repeating that, and one day it will actually become true.

[Tim O]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:36:33 +1100, Luther Root

Post by Luther Root

Post by Tim O
I'm feeling zero pressure to upgrade after a full year.
Perhaps by the end of next year, I'll want to upgrade the video card
but it will be a voluntary upgrade, not mandatory.

Keep on repeating that, and one day it will actually become true.

Yep, and you keep trading up to the XBox 780 and PS4.
Maybe Gamespot will give you a $25 credit for all that crap you spent
1500 dollars on.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Tim O
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:36:33 +1100, Luther Root

Post by Luther Root

Post by Tim O
I'm feeling zero pressure to upgrade after a full year.
Perhaps by the end of next year, I'll want to upgrade the video card
but it will be a voluntary upgrade, not mandatory.

Keep on repeating that, and one day it will actually become true.

Yep, and you keep trading up to the XBox 780 and PS4.
Maybe Gamespot will give you a $25 credit for all that crap you spent
1500 dollars on.

Spending $1,500 is the habit of PC gamers, not console gamers, who
trade up to new hardware every 5-7 years.

I didn't need to buy a new PC for a good 5 years but I also didn't
really play any games after Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 (well, at least not
on my own PC). I spent about $1,500 on my custom built PC back in the
months leading up to Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 - that PC couldn't handle
Crysis at even the lowest settings.

[JLC]

Post by Tim O
Even though the 8800GT has been passed as the top of the graphics
heap, it still runs nearly everything at my LCD's native res of
1680x1050. I'm feeling zero pressure to upgrade after a full year.
Perhaps by the end of next year, I'll want to upgrade the video card
but it will be a voluntary upgrade, not mandatory.

Same here. My 8800GT and 3GHz E6850 C2D are still going strong after a
year of fantastic gaming. I have been looking hard at the ATI 4870 since
I just upgraded my 19" CRT to a 22" WS LCD. But even having to run games
at 1680x1050 instead of 1280x1024 my rig is still doing great. And I'm
playing all the newest games on it. FC2 runs smooth with all settings
set to high and textures and fire set to very high with 2x AA and 16x
AF. The game looks amazing. JLC

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Tim O

Post by Les Steel
Nor do most PCs. I've had the Same overall PC for almost 2 years now,
Have only recently changed the graphics card through choice, rather than
need. I also don't envisage updating the CPU anytime soon either, still
very more than capable for the latest games.

The 6 month upgrade cycle is an old chestnut of a console argument
that has a center of truth from way back in the 486 and Pentium 1 days
when hardware technology was exploding at an exponential pace.
I'll confess to buying more than one $300 graphics card in a year back
then, but the upgrade argument is mostly a dead end now.
My current PC is a year old right about now. My wife bought most of
the parts as my Christmas present and I got them last Thanksgiving to
enjoy before the Christmas hustle.
Even though the 8800GT has been passed as the top of the graphics
heap, it still runs nearly everything at my LCD's native res of
1680x1050. I'm feeling zero pressure to upgrade after a full year.
Perhaps by the end of next year, I'll want to upgrade the video card
but it will be a voluntary upgrade, not mandatory.

If I purchased a $400 computer from Dell or HP three years ago, it not
only would have been unable to play the most recent (at the time) PC
games but it would not have been able to play future games.

If I invested in a $1,500 computer from Dell or HP when the Xbox 360
first came out, I'm sure i would have had better luck and more
longevity but then I would have paid $1,500 for a computer.

PC gaming of old becomes less and less viable for all but the high-end
niche gamers as the years go by. The arguments that the people
included in the original article just don't make sense.

[Walter Mitty]

Post by NV55
http://www.edge-online.com/features/online-execs-talk-death-consoles
Online Execs Talk Death of Consoles
The traditional videogame console format came under attack during a
panel discussion at BMO Capital Markets' Interactive Entertainment
Conference in New York on Thursday.
Alex St. John, the WildTangent chairman who's made no secret about his
stance on the current console model, hammered home his opinion that
the console platform is doomed.

He's clearly totally clueless.

Post by NV55
"I think you're looking at the last generation of consoles. I don't
think Sony or Microsoft is going to make another console. The problem
is that great graphics, which is what used to differentiate a console,
are a commodity. Everybody's got it. You can't buy a PC that doesn't
have Xbox or Nintendo-quality graphics anymore."

Huh? It was almost impossible to buy a PC that did not have superior
graphics. The low resolution fuzzy factor on most peopels tube TVs
conned them into thinking there was more horsepower. There was not and
never was if you are looking same gen PC versus Console.

A small dedicated box which powers that big screen will never go
away. It's simply a convenience factor.

[Rich Hutnik]

Post by NV55
http://www.edge-online.com/features/online-execs-talk-death-consoles
Online Execs Talk Death of Consoles
Hilmar Pétursson, CEO of EVE Online developer CCP chimed in, "Really
the only value proposition of the console was the lack of piracy on
the console versus the PC." But he claimed console gaming is losing
that feather in its cap, noting how online PC gaming is much more
piracy-resistant than packaged gaming.

One can say "Bullocks" to this. Multiple reasons:
1. Piracy isn't the "only value proposition". How about not worrying
about hardware incompatibility with software? That is a big deal. PC
gaming, unless it is going to end up having one standard fits all,
isn't going to have this.
2. Console gaming is more living room. To presume that the rig I am
using to check email is the same I am going to do group gaming on is
absurd.
3. Consoles are less expensive hardware wise.
4. These individuals operate on the presumption that somehow ad-driven
flash games, and massive multiplayer online are what everyone wants to
play. The PC gaming industry is driven now by the casual game "Flash"
manta, and massive multiplayer online mantra. So, every company
decides it is going to do massive multiplayer, thinking it will mass
large number of players and rake in the cash. They all think they
have the next World of Warcraft. Finding that they can't be Blizzard,
they think ad revenue will save them. Or they want to be Popcap, and
believe Flash is their savior.
5. Established game genres are missing completely from the PC. Sorry,
but not everyone is interested in being a Minotaur Shaman and hurling
lightning bolts. Some would rather do a fighting game.
6. The person thinks of PC gaming as more "price resistant". I wonder
if it ever occurred to this guy that the price model of console games
reflect what the market will have?

Ok, let me add one caveat to this: With the economy going through what
it is going through, people may stop buying new consoles. We may be
stuck awhile with the same graphics we have now, due to cost issues.
It is possible PC gaming makes some sort of a comeback, but will
people stop buying machines that are over 50% less expensive and
effectively entertain?

- Rich

[Tim O]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:50:29 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
Ok, let me add one caveat to this: With the economy going through what
it is going through, people may stop buying new consoles. We may be
stuck awhile with the same graphics we have now, due to cost issues.
It is possible PC gaming makes some sort of a comeback, but will
people stop buying machines that are over 50% less expensive and
effectively entertain?

You actually think Flash is a driving force in PC gaming?

Whew, thats a knee slapper.

[Rich Hutnik]

Post by Tim O
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:50:29 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
Ok, let me add one caveat to this: With the economy going through what
it is going through, people may stop buying new consoles.  We may be
stuck awhile with the same graphics we have now, due to cost issues.
It is possible PC gaming makes some sort of a comeback, but will
people stop buying machines that are over 50% less expensive and
effectively entertain?

You actually think Flash is a driving force in PC gaming?
Whew, thats a knee slapper.

"Flash games" is my shorthand for games targeting the casual game
market. A lot are done in Flash, which is why I said Flash. They
refer to stup by Popcap and so on. And yes, these titles, and massive
multiplayer are top titles for the PC. The third category is games
like Crisis, which require obscene rigs to run real well.

- Rich

[Tim O]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:36:58 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
"Flash games" is my shorthand for games targeting the casual game
market. A lot are done in Flash, which is why I said Flash. They
refer to stup by Popcap and so on. And yes, these titles, and massive
multiplayer are top titles for the PC. The third category is games
like Crisis, which require obscene rigs to run real well.
- Rich

Well thats wronghand, not shorthand. Just call them casual games.
Popcap Games Framework is a C++ app. Web games are different
altogether. That market isn't comparable to the console market anyway.
Its mainly people that work on their computers and use the games as a
time killer.

I'm starting to see a trend in the replies in this thread that
indicates people that are gamers but are either lacking knowledge,
intimidated by computers or think they're too expensive. Thats fine,
but it really shouldn't be held as a reason PC games are inferior to
consoles.

[Rich Hutnik]

Post by Tim O
Well thats wronghand, not shorthand. Just call them casual games.
Popcap Games Framework is a C++ app. Web games are different
altogether. That market isn't comparable to the console market anyway.
Its mainly people that work on their computers and use the games as a
time killer.

What Popcap did was elevate the Web games to an entirely new level. A
number of the games they did could be played by Flash, but then they
wen above and beyond.

Post by Tim O
I'm starting to see a trend in the replies in this thread that
indicates people that are gamers but are either lacking knowledge,
intimidated by computers or think they're too expensive. Thats fine,
but it really shouldn't be held as a reason PC games are inferior to
consoles.

The issue of PC games aren't they are inferior. The issue has to do
more with the hardware being inconsistent. People buy consoles for
games, because it is less of a headache. Unless PCs become more like
Macs, then this issue of headaches isn't going to go away. PCs now
have less niches that consoles. Due to the market shifting it is
pretty much to a place where, once a game genre jumps to a console, it
stays there, and dries up on PCs. Go into any retail environment, and
you see the variety of games drying up on the PC.

I write this as a person who had come out of a PC gaming background,
but got fed up with the churn of hardware, and need to do upgrades. I
have a Masters degree in computers in fact. I still lean on PC games
for strategy games from time to time, but I have witnessed the genre
of PC gaming shrink to smaller and smaller niches. And I write in
response to the utter bullocks arguments laid out in the

Anyhow, for now, PC games are safe in these areas:
1. Garage games for developers to make a name for themselves.
2. Moddable FPS.
3. RTS (consoles SUCK at these).
4. Massive Multiplayer online.
5. Complex flight and driving sims.
6. Web powered games. These are mostly puzzle games.
7. Under $30 bargain games, consisting to a large degree of graphic
adventures, relatives to Myst and Lucas Arts.

This is the niche that PC games have been reduced to. The market has
shrunk to a very large degree.

- Rich

[JLC]

Post by Rich Hutnik
1. Garage games for developers to make a name for themselves.
2. Moddable FPS.
3. RTS (consoles SUCK at these).
4. Massive Multiplayer online.
5. Complex flight and driving sims.
6. Web powered games. These are mostly puzzle games.
7. Under $30 bargain games, consisting to a large degree of graphic
adventures, relatives to Myst and Lucas Arts.
This is the niche that PC games have been reduced to. The market has
shrunk to a very large degree.
- Rich

You are so clueless it's laughable. JLC

[Rich Hutnik]

Post by JLC

This is the niche that PC games have been reduced to.  The market has
shrunk to a very large degree.
- Rich

You are so clueless it's laughable. JLC

You are either a PC games bigot, or a console bigot. The reality is,
as a percentage of the electronic games market, the PC games market
has shrunk. It actually had flattened. Oh, you have some massive
multiplayer games doing great, bu they are a few titles. It just is
not the same. What is happening is that once a game genre competently
transitions to a game console, and show sales, it leaves the PC game
arena. Oh, you may get a bone thrown the PC gamer's way, like Street
Fighter 4 is said to also be coming to the PC, but this exception
proves the general rule.

- Rich

[Andrew]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:30:45 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
1. Garage games for developers to make a name for themselves.

With XNA, I think the 360 could take over that mantle.

Post by Rich Hutnik
2. Moddable FPS.
3. RTS (consoles SUCK at these).
4. Massive Multiplayer online.

I don't see a reason why a 360 or PS3 can't run MMO's, unless there is
some limitation in the way servers are handled at the back end.

Post by Rich Hutnik
5. Complex flight and driving sims.
6. Web powered games. These are mostly puzzle games.

There are plenty of casual games for all 3 consoles.

Post by Rich Hutnik
7. Under $30 bargain games, consisting to a large degree of graphic
adventures, relatives to Myst and Lucas Arts.

A few days ago I bought Wipeout HD for $20 via download. There are
plenty of great Classic titles for the 360 and PS3 for $30.

Post by Rich Hutnik
This is the niche that PC games have been reduced to. The market has
shrunk to a very large degree.

I think it has shrunk more!

[Conor]

Post by Rich Hutnik
1. Garage games for developers to make a name for themselves.

Nope. XBLive has downloadable community created games and runs
competitions for garage developers.

Post by Rich Hutnik
2. Moddable FPS.

Nope. Playstation 3 already allows that in at least UT3.

Post by Rich Hutnik
3. RTS (consoles SUCK at these).

They've started to be released on console now at the same time.

Post by Rich Hutnik
4. Massive Multiplayer online.
5. Complex flight and driving sims.
6. Web powered games. These are mostly puzzle games.
7. Under $30 bargain games, consisting to a large degree of graphic
adventures, relatives to Myst and Lucas Arts.

Under $30 bargain games exist MORE for consoles and are usually only a
year old or so. "Platinum" titles for the Playstation for example.

Post by Rich Hutnik
This is the niche that PC games have been reduced to. The market has
shrunk to a very large degree.

And even those points listed above have been negated to some point.

[Luther Root]

Post by Rich Hutnik
5. Complex flight and driving sims.

I would yes to flight sims. But consoles more than hold their own in
terms of driving games.

[CJM]

Post by Rich Hutnik
What Popcap did was elevate the Web games to an entirely new level. A
number of the games they did could be played by Flash, but then they
wen above and beyond.

Popcap didn't start on the web, they were ported to the web on than back of
their PC successes.

Post by Rich Hutnik
1. Garage games for developers to make a name for themselves.
2. Moddable FPS.

Yep.

Post by Rich Hutnik
3. RTS (consoles SUCK at these).

Don't play these, but I though they worked reasonable well on consoles due
to the lack of precise controles and limited menu driven interfaces.

Post by Rich Hutnik
4. Massive Multiplayer online.

Yep

Post by Rich Hutnik
5. Complex flight and driving sims.

Easy Tiger! The two areas where typical console controls systems excel (i.e.
aren't crippled) are for beat-'em-ups and driving games - two genre's where
keyboard and mouse don't excel. Sure, PCs can use wheels and console-style
controllers but these are obviously native to consoles.

Post by Rich Hutnik
6. Web powered games. These are mostly puzzle games.

With web enable consoles, and given the simple controls required, you can
expect consoles to hone in on this genre as well.

Post by Rich Hutnik
7. Under $30 bargain games, consisting to a large degree of graphic
adventures, relatives to Myst and Lucas Arts.

Too vague. Consoles have bargains, and consoles handle (some) graphical
adventures reasonably well.


Due to their relative control systems, PCs are far superior for anything
that requires fast, accurate movement and aiming, such as FPSs and FP-RPGs.

[Luther Root]

Post by Tim O
I'm starting to see a trend in the replies in this thread that
indicates people that are gamers but are either lacking knowledge,
intimidated by computers or think they're too expensive. Thats fine,
but it really shouldn't be held as a reason PC games are inferior to
consoles.

Look at the subject header. Read it very, very slowly. Try to comprehend
what the discussion is about. Think about it again. Then start your rant.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Tim O
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:36:58 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
"Flash games" is my shorthand for games targeting the casual game
market.  A lot are done in Flash, which is why I said Flash.  They
refer to stup by Popcap and so on.  And yes, these titles, and massive
multiplayer are top titles for the PC.  The third category is games
like Crisis, which require obscene rigs to run real well.
- Rich

Well thats wronghand, not shorthand. Just call them casual games.
Popcap Games Framework is a C++ app. Web games are different
altogether. That market isn't comparable to the console market anyway.
Its mainly people that work on their computers and use the games as a
time killer.

What do you think Popcap Games are? They're games that people can play
on their work computers or kill time with on their laptops during the
commute.

I do agree that "casual games" is the most appropriate term.

Post by Tim O
I'm starting to see a trend in the replies in this thread that
indicates people that are gamers but are either lacking knowledge,
intimidated by computers or think they're too expensive. Thats fine,
but it really shouldn't be held as a reason PC games are inferior to
consoles.

In that case, we should first define what we all mean by "inferior."
Obviously, PC hardware is technologically superior to console
hardware. That's always been the case and it always will be the case.

However, the whole idea of hardcore PC gaming is just not viable for
mainstream consumers, who make up the vast majority of PC gamers.

The idea put forth by the people in the article that console gaming
will somehow go away is ridiculous. If people want to play casual
games, there are good options on both sides of the fence.

If people want to play MMORPGs, that's good for the companies that run
the one or two really popular MMORPGs but not so good for anyone else.

If people want to play hardcore games, things will be as they have
been for a while now - the techies will go build themselves a massive
gaming rig for the best resolutions and framerates and the other 95%
of gamers will buy a console.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by Tim O
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:50:29 -0800 (PST), Rich Hutnik

Post by Rich Hutnik
Ok, let me add one caveat to this: With the economy going through what
it is going through, people may stop buying new consoles.  We may be
stuck awhile with the same graphics we have now, due to cost issues.
It is possible PC gaming makes some sort of a comeback, but will
people stop buying machines that are over 50% less expensive and
effectively entertain?

You actually think Flash is a driving force in PC gaming?
Whew, thats a knee slapper.

It's a key technology behind the small casual games that proliferate
the web. Small casual games make up the largest slice of the total PC
gaming pie.

[The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)]

Post by NV55
http://www.edge-online.com/features/online-execs-talk-death-consoles
Online Execs Talk Death of Consoles
Hilmar Pétursson, CEO of EVE Online developer CCP chimed in, "Really
the only value proposition of the console was the lack of piracy on
the console versus the PC." But he claimed console gaming is losing
that feather in its cap, noting how online PC gaming is much more
piracy-resistant than packaged gaming.

1. Piracy isn't the "only value proposition".  How about not worrying
about hardware incompatibility with software?  That is a big deal.  PC
gaming, unless it is going to end up having one standard fits all,
isn't going to have this.
2. Console gaming is more living room.  To presume that the rig I am
using to check email is the same I am going to do group gaming on is
absurd.
3. Consoles are less expensive hardware wise.
4. These individuals operate on the presumption that somehow ad-driven
flash games, and massive multiplayer online are what everyone wants to
play.  The PC gaming industry is driven now by the casual game "Flash"
manta, and massive multiplayer online mantra.  So, every company
decides it is going to do massive multiplayer, thinking it will mass
large number of players and rake in the cash.  They all think they
have the next World of Warcraft.  Finding that they can't be Blizzard,
they think ad revenue will save them.  Or they want to be Popcap, and
believe Flash is their savior.
5. Established game genres are missing completely from the PC.  Sorry,
but not everyone is interested in being a Minotaur Shaman and hurling
lightning bolts.

My co-workers were wondering what the Hell I was laughing at.

Some would rather do a fighting game.
6. The person thinks of PC gaming as more "price resistant".  I wonder
if it ever occurred to this guy that the price model of console games
reflect what the market will have?
Ok, let me add one caveat to this: With the economy going through what
it is going through, people may stop buying new consoles.  We may be
stuck awhile with the same graphics we have now, due to cost issues.
It is possible PC gaming makes some sort of a comeback, but will
people stop buying machines that are over 50% less expensive and
effectively entertain?

Considering that purchasing a decent quality gaming PC will always be
more expensive than purchasing a console, I think PC gaming would
suffer just as much from the current economy as console gaming would,
if not more so.

[Goro]

No one has yet mentioned the true death of PC games : secuROM! That
is going to do more harm to the PC gaming industry than any console,
imho. I know lots of people that would buy SPORE, BIOSHOCK, DEAD
SPACE, ... in a heartbeat except that they won't subject their PCs to
secuROM.

I used to be a big time PC gamer back in the day, worked selling games
thru college, and then worked in the industry for a while (one of my
friends is the co-creator of XBox), but then sort of burned out and
haven't played much in the past 10yrs. The landscape seemed to be
overcome with FPS for a while and while it was interesting to look at
the renderer (and sometimes annoying) and the textures, overall i was
just uninterested in the game experience.

I recently bought a PS3 and XBox360 and played Portal (i'd played some
Narbacular Drop on the PC) and then Dead Space. Loved them. A few
former co-worker worked on Bioshock and so i just got that and started
playing.

My feelings are a split. I agree with the original article in that
*I* enjoy gaming on the 50" TV in the living room with my HT receiver
and Big speakers and that i'm actually not that fond of playing games
while seated at the computer. However, there are quite a few things
that skew in favor of the cmptuer, natch. In Portal, there were some
rooms where i'm sure using KB+Mouse interface would have been MUCH
MUCH easier/better than using the analog thumbsticks on the console
controller.

Civilization Revolution was a fun game, but all it did was make me
miss the PC game. I played it for about 3hrs and then traded it away
on goozex.

I saw Lemmings on the PS Store and wondered how that would be on the
PS3 with the dualshock controller. I played that quite a bit on the
Amiga500 and just can't imagine playing it without a mouse. The other
Psygnosis games i loved on the A500 like Shadow of the Beast and
Barbarian; would love to see modern updates of those

I used to love Bullfrog games like Populous, Powermonger, and
Syndicate. There aren't modern equivalents, are there? And those are
other games that i see optimized for KB+Mouse and i'm not sure how
well they'd translate to the console controller.

Sitting on the couch, playing the ps3/xbox is a more enjoyable gaming
experience, imho, than on the pc. More immersive. Having hte lights
off, sounds turned up, and playing Deadspace stressed me out to no
end; i loved it. The ambient sound and background music were
excellent.

I downloaded Super Stardust HD ont he PS3 and played that like crazy;
simple arcade-style shooter for ~$10 or so and it's perfect. I'd
love to see HD updates of horizontal scroller shooters like RTYPE or
level platforms (and so i'm interested in Little Big Planet).

My favorite game of all time is still on the PC (Nethack) and i
stilldo play that quite often; i also do play flahs games here and
there (desktop tower defense, eg). But it's only as a diversion not
an immersion.

Anyway, i don't understand the animosity involved in the PC/console
argument as they are both viable. I don't see either one going away,
though i do think that the next gens have caught up quite a bit to PCs
in visuals, notably b/c finally TVs can display non-interlaced FRAMES
at reasonable resolutions. It's only with this gen that you can play
a console and have it look like a PC game. Still, the PC does win in
visuals and always will. I played the demo of Deadspace on teh PC and
it looks substantially nicer, but i prefer playing it on the xbox!
It may be similar to the "good enough" threshhold that seems to be
plaguing BluRay. "Yes, it is better, but DVD looks good enough for
me."

btw, new Diablo 3 is due out on PC soon; have the other diablos been
released on console?

-goro-

[e***@pop.uky.edu]

Post by NV55
http://www.edge-online.com/features/online-execs-talk-death-consoles
Online Execs Talk Death of Consoles

The economy is going south fast. That means people are going to be
looking more and more for VALUE. And having to periodically rebuild
your system with new $300 videocards, bigger CPU's, and more RAM every
2 years just to play newer games is hardly where the value is. About
the only price advantage that PC's offer over consoles is the ease in
obtaining free pirated PC games. And that's hardly going to be
considered a great selling point for software makers.

[Doug Jacobs]

Post by NV55
http://www.edge-online.com/features/online-execs-talk-death-consoles
Alex St. John, the WildTangent chairman who's made no secret about his
stance on the current console model, hammered home his opinion that
the console platform is doomed.

What a surprise, a publisher for PC shareware titles thinks consoles are
dying.

Post by NV55
"I think you're looking at the last generation of consoles. I don't
think Sony or Microsoft is going to make another console. The problem
is that great graphics, which is what used to differentiate a console,
are a commodity. Everybody's got it. You can't buy a PC that doesn't
have Xbox or Nintendo-quality graphics anymore."

First off, yes you CAN buy a PC that doesn't have Xbox-quality graphics.
Only higher end graphics cards can output HD resolutions (or better.)
Furthermore, most entry level PC desktops and laptops used integrated
graphics chipsets that DON'T have a 3d processor in them - making them
USELESS for most PC games.

Second, I don't follow his logic here. Consoles now have graphics as good
as a PC, so...people are going to stop buying consoles?

Buying a console was never about having better graphics than a PC. Sure,
the gap between consoles and PCs has narrowed, but if its grahpics you
want, you already have a high end graphics card that costs as much as a
console by itself. In fact, you probably have 2 them.

Post by NV55
He noted how World of Warcraft, a PC-only MMO, made more revenue than
all Xbox 360 software combined in 2007.

It also made more revenue than all PC game software combined. His point?

Post by NV55
Hilmar P?tursson, CEO of EVE Online developer CCP chimed in, "Really
the only value proposition of the console was the lack of piracy on
the console versus the PC." But he claimed console gaming is losing
that feather in its cap, noting how online PC gaming is much more
piracy-resistant than packaged gaming.

Lack of piracy on consoles?!?

Post by NV55
Both St. John and P?tursson's businesses are PC-centric, so their
slant away from console gaming may be expected. But Lars Buttler, CEO
of online PC and console developer/publisher Trion World Networks also
noted pitfalls of the console gaming business.
"You also have these huge markets in Asia, Eastern Europe and
everywhere else that really don't give a damn about consoles. They're
all PC online," he said. "Once you run your big games completely
server-side there is really not much need for any specific box [such
as a console]."

"We know these guys are biased, so let's get another executive of a PC
publisher who really doesn't understand the market to give us his
opinion. Gee, it's just as biased as the other 2 guys..."

Ok, granted, Korea is largely dominated by PC games, Japan's market is
shrinking, and China may be a huge market but still faces huge problems
with piracy. Eastern Europe, I don't know. Piracy is big there like it
is in China. People are playing both PC games and consoles, but it's
difficult to tell which (if any) platform has dominance. Like China,
Eastern Europe could be a huge opportunity if the piracy problem can be
brought under control.

Post by NV55
He didn't downplay consumers' desire to play a game in a living room
setting, but suggested that gaming technology will become so
commonplace, dedicated gaming consoles as we know them will become a
thing of the past.

So...gaming consoles won't go away, they'll just be everywhere. Er...what?

If it's a thing that can play games, guess what? It's a console.

If anything, the definition of "PC" is beginning to become fuzzier. What
is a PC really? If I shove a processor, some memory, a networking port,
and some really large hard drives into a box so I can record TV shows in
my living room, is that a "PC"? Most folks call it a DVR.

Unfortunately, these executives just don't get it. The hardware is only
as useful as the software you run on it. That goes for both consoles and
PCs. This generation, we've seen "consoles" take on more and more tasks
that used to be only possible with a PC. While I can't see a living room
box being used for word processingand spreadsheets, I can see "The Family
PC" breaking into different specialized components. Just as people have
multiple appliances in their kitchen, so we'll have multiple computer
appliances. Arguably this is already happening. You've got your handheld
gaming device, your TV gaming device, your email/office/internet device,
and your TV recording/media streaming device. While these may have a lot
of common hardware, and may even have common features - such as internet
access - you can't call any of them a PC anymore.

Post by NV55
"The console is as great of an input/output and rendering device as
the PC, and if somebody prefers to play a server-based game on the
console, we should absolutely let them do it. So it's actually not
either/or. But the 'consoles,' the 'PCs,' those things that used to be
called 'platforms' will be reduced to input/output and rendering
'devices.'
"The real platform is powerful servers and broadband."

Oh, NOW I get it. These folks are slamming consoles for their lack of MMO
gaming. These guys probably don't remember or don't know, but "client
server" has been around for decades. Even back in the early days of
computing, you would have one single computer - the mainframe - whose only
job was to process programs and give you the output. People would use a
terminal to access the mainframe. This was a very simple device, you
might even say it was "dumb", hence "dumb terminals". All it could do was
send keypresses from the user, and display the output from the mainframe
on the screen. A mainframe cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
dollars, while a dumb terminal was under a grand.

Sound familiar?

Why should you need a $1000 PC running a bloated memory intensive
operating system providing features you don't even need to run a simple
client for a game? I'm rather surprised no one's sat down and tried to
basically create a Blizzard Client box that costs no more than a video
game console. Is it a PC? No. It's basically a dumb terminal that only
knows how to play World Of Warcraft.

Post by NV55
"If we think about what's already in peoples' homes, which are 40-,
50-, 60-inch HD televisions centered around a stereo receiver with
Dolby 5.1 digital sound, and maybe one of those theater chairs, people
want to spend time in front of that kind of entertainment
experience. ... As far as entertainment is concerned, there isn't too
much more entertaining on that kind of home theater setup than playing
a console game."
St. John fired back, saying, "The illusion or the notion of the TV as
some sort of religious experience is false... Most console gamers or
kids play on their own TV sets in their own bedrooms ... Screens are
no longer an extraordinarily rare or scarce thing that you can only
find in the living room."

TVs in general, no. HDTVs and surround sound systems, on the other hand...

Post by NV55
"Only 15 percent of the next-generation consoles ever sold will ever
be connected to a network ... The vast majority of consoles will never
be plugged into broadband by 2012," St. John said, citing a report
from IDC.

With broadband penetration in the US still only hovering at about 50%, is
this a surprise? Not every PC sold to a consumer for home use is going to
be connected via broadband (even assuming its available) either.

Post by NV55
"If you believe that the next business model for gaming is online
models, the MMOs and the advertising, you also believe that you're not
going to see a console business going forward," argued St. John,
"because it can't compete. It doesn't make sense in a community-based
gaming world."

Huh? This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Post by NV55
However, Buttler said that there's a reason that most console gamers
don't connect: they simply don't have a reason to.
"What reason do you have today to really connect your console? There
are no large scale, massively-multiplayer persistent, dynamic content
applications on the console today," he said.

Yeah, because MMOs are the ONLY reason to EVER go online, right? Good
grief, this is more like a backhanded insult against St. John's company,
Wild Tangent and all other online game publishers!

Apparently none of these folks have ever even checked out Xbox Live, much
less PSN or Nintendo's lame online service. No, there aren't MMO's
there...yet. There's about 6 different ones under development between the
360 and PS3. In the meantime there are demos to try, and games to buy.
Gee, who would have thought that the internet could be used for SELLING.
GAMES even!

Post by NV55
IGA's Ripley strongly disagreed with the notion: "Why would somebody
connect?" he asked rhetorically. "You've got a Trojan Horse in the
living room now. You've got a digital device with a huge amount of
memory and a lot of processing power that as we speak, can download HD
movies, rent them, purchase games from them, download additional songs
for Guitar Hero or Rock Band straight into your game. So there's all
kinds of advantages and great attributes for why you would want to be
connected right now, and I'll emphasize right now."

Finally, a bit of sanity.

Post by NV55
But St. John was unmoved. "I don't think that the economics for the
console business as we know it works viably anymore. I think you're
probably not going to see Sony or Microsoft eager to make any
announcements about launching another generation in the next few
years..."

Idiot. If anything, the Wii has shown that not only are people still
interested in console gaming, but you've got casual gamers buying
dedicated hardware...JUST SO THEY CAN PLAY GAMES. Off the internet even!

Helllllooo? What does your company do again? Why is it that no one over
there has thought of making Wild Tangent's titles available through the
online services of the consoles? Or heck, just release them as fully
packaged games! Your company seems to have no problem doing well by
simply re-skinning a game, and then releasing it for $19.95. Just think
of the cash you could make from consoles!

As for the "economics" aspect, why is that the console market has been
doing nothing but growing (even in a recession!) by leaps and bounds over
the past decade while the PC gaming market has done nothing but shrink?
Even PC developers are jumping ship for consoles simply because expected
revenues are better. Yeah, they're right. We certainly won't see another
console from Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo. Who needs a growing business?

[Walter Mitty]

Post by Doug Jacobs
Second, I don't follow his logic here. Consoles now have graphics as good
as a PC, so...people are going to stop buying consoles?

No. They have graphics as good as an OLD pc. they dont have the memory
of a PC, the CPU of a PC or the bandwidth for gfx that a semi decent PC
has.

So thats why you dont follow the logic : you dont seem to understand
that a console on the old TVs gave the illusion of better graphics
because of the nature of the low resolution TV. Playing those same games
on a high rez monitor and you would have seen the difference. Do you
think these consoles have some sort of magical video cards? They are low
spec compared to a PC released at the same time which was in any way
designed for game playing.

Is a console good value? Yes. Are they convenient? Yes. Are they great
for playing games? Yes.

But please do not start to tell us they are more powerful. They are not.