Will the PC ultimately win the console war?

ScumLord

The PC has long tried to be the jack of all trades, it could easily be credited with allot of the new technology we have today like gaming consoles, hard drive players, mp3 players, the internet and much much more but has had problems carrying off these things without being overly complicated or too expensive.

Things are slowly changing and win7 makes the PC a great all rounder. With people becoming more computer literate, OS's becoming easier to use and computer parts becoming smaller, cheaper and more powerful the PC is becoming a more and more commonplace appliance in the home, probably even more so than all the consoles put together. Is it only a matter of time before it pushes out the consoles?

This isn't what any company would like, it's much more profitable to have a number of appliances doing separate tasks than one doing many. But as the PCis so open ended it often forces markets in ways that don't suit profitability.

happydayz182

I dont see pc gaming booming tbh like if friends come over i wouldnt sit them in front of a monitor for fifa or other multiplayer games.

Think the current gen is great its lasting well and people like to have a game console in the living room etc just fr the social aspect even like it does what its supposed to do play games .

The pc is the master jack of all trades but not every pc excels and by the time the budget pcs can play xbox 360 or ps3 level games therel probally be a new wave of consoles

i see your point but even game companys would rather produce for the consoles piracy is rampant on pc

smithy1981

happydayz182 wrote: »

I dont see pc gaming booming tbh like if friends come over i wouldnt sit them in front of a monitor for fifa or other multiplayer games.

Think the current gen is great its lasting well and people like to have a game console in the living room etc just fr the social aspect even like it does what its supposed to do play games .

The pc is the master jack of all trades but not every pc excels and by the time the budget pcs can play xbox 360 or ps3 level games therel probally be a new wave of consoles

i see your point but even game companys would rather produce for the consoles piracy is rampant on pc

I just hook up my pc to the tele when friends call around. Throw in a few xbox pads and we're set.

And i reckon a budget gaming pc can already play ps3 and xbox "level" games. The latters hardware being quite a few years old now. Have a look over at the building and upgrading forum and check out the budget gaming pc sticky.

Blowfish

happydayz182 wrote: »

The pc is the master jack of all trades but not every pc excels and by the time the budget pcs can play xbox 360 or ps3 level games therel probally be a new wave of consoles

Most ps3 and 360 games run natively at 720p. Budget pc's have absolutely no problem running modern games at that resolution.

PogMoThoin

happydayz182 wrote: »

i see your point but even game companys would rather produce for the consoles piracy is rampant on pc

Its also just as rampant on consoles, but the market is bigger

gizmo

PCs will never win the console war because PCs aren't consoles. Not to be pedantic or anything but that is the reality of it. There will always be a market for a fixed hardware unit which can just sit there and play games with minimal fuss.

This was actually discussed in another thread for quite some time and I think the general consensus was we'll see consoles becoming more PC like rather than vice versa. That being said, as I mentioned above, it's the fact that you can buy a piece of hardware which is guaranteed to play games for a certain period of time at the same level of quality as everyone else who bought it which will ensure there will always be a market for consoles.

Overheal

The PC is never in a console war. It floats above it. Like a boat over a pond of angry fish attacking angry turtles attacking angry pond scum.

Liber8or

Nothing will ever come close to the superiority of a mouse and keyboard. While PCs utilise them with games, PCs will remain the dominant force for gaming.
I have used PCs all my life for gaming, but having entered college last year, I couldn't afford to keep up with the changes with technology and the expense that came with it. So, I bought myself an Xbox and settled with that.

Anyone who tries to argue that MW2 is better on console (either console) is an idiot and does not understand the capabilities available to the user on a PC. Disregarding the controls, the graphics, choice and options available to a PC gamer is far more substantial over that of a console gamer.

Nevertheless, we all know there are flaws in PC games - bugs, driver issues, support, cheating in online games, etc. But, these small details can be overcome by user experience. If you know how to use a PC effectively, troubleshoot and utilise everything a PC has to offer, one can enjoy a far more superior experience than on a PS3/Wii/Xbox.

Consoles dumb things down for gamers, take advantage of those who are unable or unwilling to learn how to use a PC and enjoy what it has to offer. They are, essentially, a by-product of what gaming on the PC is, in a cheaper and more simpler way.

I know, once I leave college and get a job I will be returning to the PC for most of my gaming while only dipping into my Xbox for those exclusives - nothing more than that.

Maximilian

Actually, if this Cloud Gaming thing actually works, it will end up winning out in the end I think.

I think PC's will always have a place though.

Cunny-Funt

happydayz182 wrote: »

by the time the budget pcs can play xbox 360 or ps3 level games therel probally be a new wave of consoles

lol budget pc's kick the ****e out of the consoles. PC hardware is very cheap these days.

RolandIRL

of course the pc will win. i've an xbox 360 and pc. though my pc is old, my video card is an nVidia GeForce 2, most games i play work on it.
another advantage of the pc is strategy games like supreme commander or star wars empire at war. the experience of these games on a console is nothing compared to on a pc. i bought supreme commander for xbox and it was just so slow when loads of units battling. got it off a friend for my laptop running win7... seamless.
besides most strategy games aren't available on ps3 or xbox

hooradiation

ScumLord wrote: »

The PC has long tried to be the jack of all trades, it could easily be credited with allot of the new technology we have today like gaming consoles, hard drive players, mp3 players, the internet and much much more but has had problems carrying off these things without being overly complicated or too expensive.

Things are slowly changing and win7 makes the PC a great all rounder. With people becoming more computer literate, OS's becoming easier to use and computer parts becoming smaller, cheaper and more powerful the PC is becoming a more and more commonplace appliance in the home, probably even more so than all the consoles put together. Is it only a matter of time before it pushes out the consoles?

This isn't what any company would like, it's much more profitable to have a number of appliances doing separate tasks than one doing many. But as the PCis so open ended it often forces markets in ways that don't suit profitability.

No, never happening. Ever.

The PC market is currently very niche and PC owners have done a fantastic job of keeping it that way by pirating like nobodies business.

Consoles are easier to develop for, the piracy is far less of an issue (with the exception of perhaps the DS), and more to the point they are something that people can just pick up, hook into another familiar piece of technology (the TV) and play with and thats something that the PC can never be.

And now we can get back to PC owning elitists frenzying about how the PC is better than everything and if everyone just realised it what a wonderfully dull world it'd be.

wayne040576

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

lol budget pc's kick the ****e out of the consoles. PC hardware is very cheap these days.

If you have a multi core cpu that's under say 18 months (maybe older) and something like an 8800GT, I think you're pretty much on par if not better than the ps3 and xbox. A machine with both should be fairly cheap now.

I have all platforms. I stick to the pc for most fps and strategy games, prefer the control pads on third person games and platformers so I use the consoles for them. With all the sales on pc games lately, I've been playing a lot more of them although I've played Demons' souls (my game of the year) more than anything else.

Overheal

wayne040576 wrote: »

If you have a multi core cpu that's under say 18 months (maybe older) and something like an 8800GT, I think you're pretty much on par if not better than the ps3 and xbox. A machine with both should be fairly cheap now.

Try 49 Months and 61 months, respectively. Thats how old the hardware is for these two consoles. While there have been new batches and a couple tweaks to the setup, the games are still fashioned around the baseline.

Almost any PC made in the last 24 months with in any way decent card is plenty capable of running circles around either console.

Azza

PogMothoin wrote:

Its also just as rampant on consoles, but the market is bigger

For those that say console piracy is just as rampant as PC piracy they should look at the numbers posted by torrent freaks recently.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/61765

Which found that while piracy on consoles like the Xbox 360 and Wii was significant, on average piracy on PC games was 3 times higher. Which in turn is totally outdone by movie piracy. I'd also imagine hand held console piracy is significantly higher than its regular console counter part.

Which is pretty similar findings to a report into PC gaming piracy a while back by Koroush Ghazi over on tweakguides.com

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_4.html

Again not saying that every pirated game is a lost sale or anything like that. The developers realise that themselves but even if only 5% of pirated PC games are lost sales thats still over 200,000 less copies sold on something like Modern Warfare 2 on PC.

I do prefer PC gaming, I prefer its overall ability to be adapted for any situation and I do hope it becomes a bigger success, but piracy and a lack of any single driven force marketing it does hurt its ability to broaden its appeal. It also doesn't have the pick and play ability of consoles who don't have to worry about buying a pre-made PC and get stuck with a crappy integrated graphics card.

the_syco

gizmo wrote: »

That being said, as I mentioned above, it's the fact that you can buy a piece of hardware which is guaranteed to play games for a certain period of time at the same level of quality as everyone else who bought it which will ensure there will always be a market for consoles.

This is why consoles will always win.

PC game developers are always pushing with what they have, with new technologies, etc. Take Crysis: when it first came out, only those people with a high end machine could play it smoothly. If it had come out on the console, LOTS of people would be able to play it, as everyone would have had the required hardware to run it.

Someone mentioned that consoles are becoming more like PC's. They are. But there'll always be a gap, as the console manufactures know that should consoles come on par with PC's, in terms of usablity, so too will they come on par with PC, in terms of piracy.

bizmark

Not sure i agree with game's pushing pc's anymore mines around 3 years old now and apart from a 150 euro graphic's card this year i haven't upgraded it since buying it still plays every new game on high or medium with out problems it wasn't massively expensive back in the day either maybe 1000 euro dual core 5200 amd 2 gig of ram etc nothing special ran crysis fine when it came out as well.

Didnt crysis sell over a milliion copys in the end as well Link the dev's seem to have panicked something terrible when the first week sales were slow and blamed every thing under the sun and every one just ran with that.

Dravokivich

I think PC gaming has won....

it's not so much the "popularity"...

But how often do you upgrade the hardware on a console?

Every 6 months you get hardcore PC Gamers upgrading their gear...

GFX card companies endorse / invest in developement groups to push out their GFX cards.

Dcully

Every 6 months you get hardcore PC Gamers upgrading their gear...

Thats nothing more than a myth.
I got a kick ass rig almost 2 years ago, i upgraded the gfx card to one of the latest ATI cards only recently, thats all i have ever done to it and its still kick ass today.
There isnt a game on the market i cant run at full settings with FSAA and AA maxed out with very high framerate.
Sorry but this notion that pc gamers upgrade every 6 months is completely false.

L31mr0d

Piracy won't kill PC gaming, the advancement of technology will. People aren't always going to want a PC at a desk with an archaic Keyboard and mouse connected to it (seriously, how long have we had this interface)... that isn't to say PC gaming will completely disappear, but it will not exist as we currently know it, not in our children's lifetimes.

People want mobile internet and media but above all else they want simplicity. PC's aren't simple and Microsoft has been doing nothing to change this. Rule #1 you learn about PC's is that they are allowed to get away with more problems than any other piece of hardware with an OS would be. How long do you think Sonys TV would sell for if it was widely known that they'd BSOD intermittently, or get infected with viruses just by switching to the wrong TV station.

The need to have a dedicated device that we call a PC will disappear as all devices we own that contain an embedded OS will be networked together and have access to the web. I'd imagine this will be the norm by the end of the next decade.

In fact I'd predict that the line between a console and a gaming PC will be non existent within the next 2 generations. Any of the features left that are unique to a PC will disappear. The console looks set to become what the PC should of been nearly a decade ago, having a dedicated hardware platform with a modular OS on top of it. Why the console will win out is that it champions automation and simplicity over manual freedom and complexity.

People don't want control over their devices, they want the experience those devices provide, and they want it to be guaranteed. Just like radio and television and nearly every other form of emergent media technology they've seen their phases of manual interest in the hardware and a direct interaction with the medium itself. This, however, is just a phase. Simplicity will always win out in the long run.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Maximilian wrote: »

Actually, if this Cloud Gaming thing actually works, it will end up winning out in the end I think.

I think PC's will always have a place though.

They are two differant things, they will both always have a market, always. It just depends on the individual really, what they consider to be better.

the_syco wrote: »

This is why consoles will always win.

PC game developers are always pushing with what they have, with new technologies, etc. Take Crysis: when it first came out, only those people with a high end machine could play it smoothly. If it had come out on the console, LOTS of people would be able to play it, as everyone would have had the required hardware to run it.

Consoles don't "always" win... They have their exclusives, but are they really worth forking out 300+ for a console, then a further 60+ for the game? The PS3 was 749 when it first arrived on our shelves. Like, WTF? That's half an amazing PC right there. As for graphics, no matter what sony and microsoft "our new console is 15 times more powerful than the latest PC", what a crock of crap, it's marketing, they are trying to sell their products and will feed you rubbish, sad thing is, most people believe them.

A PC will always be ahead of consoles on graphics and gameplay. The gameplay on a PC is so much better. I do admit, it takes a while to get used to. I have a PS3, Xbox 360 and a pretty decent PC. Bought it about 18 months ago or more, I have yet to come across a game that I cannot play properly.

I find consoles to be quite limited, while there are some pretty good games to get on console, you are always limited to the hardware that is in the machine. It will be another few years before another console will be released. Either way, PC's are much more versatile, games are cheaper and the gameplay is much better.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

L31mr0d wrote: »

Piracy won't kill PC gaming, the advancement of technology will. People aren't always going to want a PC at a desk with an archaic Keyboard and mouse connected to it (seriously, how long have we had this interface)... that isn't to say PC gaming will completely disappear, but it will not exist as we currently know it, not in our children's lifetimes.

People want mobile internet and media but above all else they want simplicity. PC's aren't simple and Microsoft has been doing nothing to change this. Rule #1 you learn about PC's is that they are allowed to get away with more problems than any other piece of hardware with an OS would be. How long do you think Sonys TV would sell for if it was widely known that they'd BSOD intermittently, or get infected with viruses just by switching to the wrong TV station.

The need to have a dedicated device that we call a PC will disappear as all devices we own that contain an embedded OS will be networked together and have access to the web. I'd imagine this will be the norm by the end of the next decade.

In fact I'd predict that the line between a console and a gaming PC will be non existent within the next 2 generations. Any of the features left that are unique to a PC will disappear. The console looks set to become what the PC should of been nearly a decade ago, having a dedicated hardware platform with a modular OS on top of it. Why the console will win out is that it champions automation and simplicity over manual freedom and complexity.

People don't want control over their devices, they want the experience those devices provide, and they want it to be guaranteed. Just like radio and television and nearly every other form of emergent media technology they've seen their phases of manual interest in the hardware and a direct interaction with the medium itself. This, however, is just a phase. Simplicity will always win out in the long run.

PC's have been around for quite some time. Coexisting with consoles. You know what pisses a lot of PC users off? Devs creating a console game and then just making it play on a PC, without making any changes. So basically what you have is a console game on a PC. The PC community is massive, it will always exist, the technology will change but I cannot see it becomming that simple. People DO want control over their hardware, not everyone wants simplicity, some find the complexities of a PC a challenge. I for one love building new PC's from scratch. You can add a mouse and keyboard to a console, but that doesn't make it a PC. Changes the level of game play maybe, but the limitations are still there for consoles. They will always be there until microsoft and sony begin to make hardware that you can use to update your current system. Are they going to do this? I doubt it.

L31mr0d

Tessa Prehistoric Racketeering wrote: »

People DO want control over their hardware, not everyone wants simplicity, some find the complexities of a PC a challenge. I for one love building new PC's from scratch.

I build and overclock PC's myself also. I accept however that the majority of people do not want to do this. Quite a few of my friends that, back around the mid 90's started building PC's are now using a laptop for media and internet and a console for gaming.

I also accept that there are people out there that still build their own radios, but the majority wants the simplicity of a radio in their phone or small enough to pin to their lapel. Would you rather build a large radio to sit on your desk or buy a radio the size of your thumbnail to take with you as you travel?

Personal Computers have not been around for a long time relatively speaking, and as media devices they are still just coming out of their adolescence. Technology tends not to increase in utility while proportionally increasing in difficulty to operate by its user. The inverse is often true.

You only have to compare computing from the mid 90's to how people accomplish the same tasks and interact with computers now to see my point.

GothPunk

Tessa Prehistoric Racketeering wrote: »

A PC will always be ahead of consoles on graphics and gameplay. The gameplay on a PC is so much better. I do admit, it takes a while to get used to. I have a PS3, Xbox 360 and a pretty decent PC. Bought it about 18 months ago or more, I have yet to come across a game that I cannot play properly.

Can I ask you to explain this statement a bit more, because as it stands I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you and I think that it's an interesting point.

On the one hand, I remember Deus Ex: Invisible War, the sequel to one of my all time favourite games, being criticised by some gamers for being 'dumbed down' due to the console port. Is this what you mean by gameplay being better on a PC; that console games are easier, dumbed down? Are PC games more involving? More enjoyable? Is the quality and depth of gameplay tied to the system you play it on?

On the other hand, I'm of the mind that gameplay is to do with the game mechanics, how enjoyable the game is through how fun it is to play and also by being tested well and tweaked. Innovative game experiences that are enjoyable, rewarding and challenging are likely to be the hallmarks of what many would define as 'good gameplay'. What I'm getting at is this: surely gameplay is defined by the games and not the system?

So in effect are you saying that PC games, overall, are just better?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

L31mr0d wrote: »

I build and overclock PC's myself also. I accept however that the majority of people do not want to do this. Quite a few of my friends that, back around the mid 90's started building PC's are now using a laptop for media and internet and a console for gaming.

I also accept that there are people out there that still build their own radios, but the majority wants the simplicity of a radio in their phone or small enough to pin to their lapel. Would you rather build a large radio to sit on your desk or buy a radio the size of your thumbnail to take with you as you travel?

Personal Computers have not been around for a long time relatively speaking, and as media devices they are still just coming out of their adolescence. Technology tends not to increase in utility while proportionally increasing in difficulty to operate by its user. The inverse is often true.

You only have to compare computing from the mid 90's to how people accomplish the same tasks and interact with computers now to see my point.

I think you might be bringing in your personal experience a little too much, everyone I know that owns a gaming PC builds or modifies it in some shape or form. If anything new technology is being introduced to make the upgrading process even easier. I can see this becomming even easier for most people to do.

You cannot compare a radio to a computer, as both are completely differant. Component wise, end user interface, functions etc etc. Radios could never be upgraded like a PC can now, nor did it have the massive advantages.

PC's are technical, those who use them accept this, they know this and while some would accept a simpler version, I think that most would not, especially gamers, which is what we are talking about here. Some love to overclock everything they can, I only done it the once and I didn't see much of a differance. It's not really my thing although it can in some cases improve the performance of your machine.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

GothPunk wrote: »

Can I ask you to explain this statement a bit more, because as it stands I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you and I think that it's an interesting point.

On the one hand, I remember Deus Ex: Invisible War, the sequel to one of my all time favourite games, being criticised by some gamers for being 'dumbed down' due to the console port. Is this what you mean by gameplay being better on a PC; that console games are easier, dumbed down? Are PC games more involving? More enjoyable? Is the quality and depth of gameplay tied to the system you play it on?

On the other hand, I'm of the mind that gameplay is to do with the game mechanics, how enjoyable the game is through how fun it is to play and also by being tested well and tweaked. Innovative game experiences that are enjoyable, rewarding and challenging are likely to be the hallmarks of what many would define as 'good gameplay'. What I'm getting at is this: surely gameplay is defined by the games and not the system?

So in effect are you saying that PC games, overall, are just better?

Yea sorry, I knew I didn't explain this too well.

When I mean game play, I find the experience on the PC is much better than any console, but this only goes for the type of games I play. For racing and football games I find that the console is better, if you are comparing them using basic peripherals... Of course, you can buy a joypad/joystick for the PC too.

Take FPS for instance, the skill cap of a player is limited on the console due to the limited movement you have with a joypad. With a keyboard / mouse combination, that skill cap is much higher. You can be very very precise with your mouse. You can move your corsair much faster, with keybindings I find you can crouch and move better on a keyboard. Take into account how much a player plays on PC / Console. A console player will find the mouse / Keyboard combo difficult to master, while a PC player finds a console difficult to master.

As for the games, the gameplay itself is similar, but I find it much more realistic, entertaining and fulfilling on the PC. Overall, yes I think that the quality of games, the gameplay and choice of games is much better on the PC than any other console. I feel very limited when playing console games

hooradiation

Tessa Prehistoric Racketeering wrote: »

PC's have been around for quite some time. Coexisting with consoles. You know what pisses a lot of PC users off? Devs creating a console game and then just making it play on a PC, without making any changes.

They do this because there is no financial incentive to do otherwise. Why should they sink time and effort into making PC centric changes when the PC is the platform that will sell the least and be pirated the most?

gizmo

L31mr0d wrote: »

Piracy won't kill PC gaming, the advancement of technology will.

I think this point is quite debatable to be perfectly honest. I would regard it as increase in the popularity of consoles and their associated benefits than anything else. The mere fact that former PC heavyweights such as iD and Epic are now designing their engines for consoles is proof of this. You can bleat on about how powerful PCs are over consoles but when companies like this are switching it's time to wake up. Regarding the associated benefits point, lower piracy figures are part of this and only add to the level of indifference companies are showing towards the PC. Look at EA, they're not even bothering to port some of their existing franchises anymore. Not to mention the delay with big AAA games coming to the PC after their console brethren.

L31mr0d wrote: »

In fact I'd predict that the line between a console and a gaming PC will be non existent within the next 2 generations. Any of the features left that are unique to a PC will disappear. The console looks set to become what the PC should of been nearly a decade ago, having a dedicated hardware platform with a modular OS on top of it. Why the console will win out is that it champions automation and simplicity over manual freedom and complexity.

While this may be true with respect to gaming, I can still see a need, albeit a somewhat reduced one, for fully upgradable hardware in the form of a traditional PC.

As for this whole budget PC being better than a console thing, unfortunately I feel that it is no longer true. There is no way you can build a complete PC (without monitor) capable of playing the likes of MW2 at the same resolution and detail levels as a 360. I am, of course, open to correction on this but for €246.99 for an Elite, I think it's impossible.

L'prof

Plain and simple, I just don't like PC gaming and it's mainly to do with the keyboard and mouse...I never took to it, it doesn't feel right and just find it all a bit cumbersome. I have tried on numerous occasions to play PC games but, I just don't like it at all. I suppose I could try using a controller for the PC but, I'm not sure how well they work and I'm happy enough gaming on my console.

Personally, I don't think either side will win out because there are valid arguments on both sides and there will always be a market for both!

wayne040576

gizmo wrote: »

I think this point is quite debatable to be perfectly honest. I would regard it as increase in the popularity of consoles and their associated benefits than anything else. The mere fact that former PC heavyweights such as iD and Epic are now designing their engines for consoles is proof of this. You can bleat on about how powerful PCs are over consoles but when companies like this are switching it's time to wake up. Regarding the associated benefits point, lower piracy figures are part of this and only add to the level of indifference companies are showing towards the PC. Look at EA, they're not even bothering to port some of their existing franchises anymore. Not to mention the delay with big AAA games coming to the PC after their console brethren.


While this may be true with respect to gaming, I can still see a need, albeit a somewhat reduced one, for fully upgradable hardware in the form of a traditional PC.

As for this whole budget PC being better than a console thing, unfortunately I feel that it is no longer true. There is no way you can build a complete PC (without monitor) capable of playing the likes of MW2 at the same resolution and detail levels as a 360. I am, of course, open to correction on this but for €246.99 for an Elite, I think it's impossible.

I gave it a go moreso out of curiousity than anything else. Did it all on komplett. I got as far as the cpu, mainboard, ram, hard drive and graphics card and had already hit 400.
That still leaves the case + extras. I could maybe drop the cpu and board price a little. Graphics card is cheap enough.

Intel Core™ 2 Duo E7400 2,8GHz, €118
ASUS P5Q Deluxe, P45, Socket-775 €128
Corsair Value S. PC5300 DDR2 2GB €46
ASUS GeForce 9500GT 512MB PhysX CUDA €45
Western Digital Caviar SE16 500GB SATA2 €42
Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus CPU Cooler €23

Hercule

I am being very cautious of this thread - good luck mods, some heavy moderation will have to take place to stop it from being a fanboy train wreck

One thing strikes me with regards costs:

Id say most ppl in this discussion are "assuming" the cost of a TV or Monitor when comparing the cost of these machines

If including a monitor in the PC price -vs- Console price debate you should include the cost of a TV on top of the cost of the xbox elite

Add that to the costs incurred when the console software itself traditionally costs more then PC (not always the case I know). And as far as I recall, dont xboxs need monthly live subscriptions to play online?

From a purely selfish PC gamer perspective:
PC gamers (like me) are traditionally willing to pay a higher premium on hardware for better quality (lower premium) software. As the difference between a "console game" and a "PC game" gets smaller - (or rather we stop getting PC games and just get watered down console games on PC) the demand for this high premium hardware is going down.

A testament to this is the console port that is CoD:MW2 (to my knowledge) does not appear as part of any "graphics card + game" bundles on PC - unlike most major FPS releases for the last decade.

In our lifetime neither medium has a definitive future - for the moment I look forward to at least another decade of great games on all both platforms :P

leninbenjamin

Maximilian wrote: »

Actually, if this Cloud Gaming thing actually works, it will end up winning out in the end I think.

I think PC's will always have a place though.

It will be a long time before the technology is mature enough, and even longer until the infrastructure is up to standard. As fast as technology changes, I can't see this becoming a standard until the latter half of this century.

hooradiation wrote: »

The PC market is currently very niche

Lol

hooradiation wrote: »

Consoles are easier to develop for

also lol.

Azza wrote: »

Again not saying that every pirated game is a lost sale or anything like that. The developers realise that themselves but even if only 5% of pirated PC games are lost sales thats still over 200,000 less copies sold.

Piracy at this stage has become nothing more than an excuse. Lazy publishers will at times blame piracy rather than own up to their own failings. Statistically speaking piracy is not well known at all, I don't believe any figures I see because there are so many vested interests involved in their acquisition (even so called 'academic studies' are often entirely funded by a publisher).

Secondly, it's also just as easy statistically to equate piracy with increased sales but you rarely ever hear people investigating this because of the vested interests in play. And it has been documented that piracy is a source of growth in other industries, Radiohead being popularised through Napster being the prime example.

Now I'm not saying Piracy doesn't have an impact, but I believe it has much less of an impact than publishers would have you believe.

L31mr0d wrote: »

In fact I'd predict that the line between a console and a gaming PC will be non existent within the next 2 generations. Any of the features left that are unique to a PC will disappear. The console looks set to become what the PC should of been nearly a decade ago, having a dedicated hardware platform with a modular OS on top of it. Why the console will win out is that it champions automation and simplicity over manual freedom and complexity.

You're on the right lines, but you have it the wrong way around. The console is becoming more like the PC. Where once it was a very very specific piece of hardware and developers had to code in assembly, nowadays developers have full x86 at their fingertips and a standard graphics pipeline as found in PCs. As PC hardware shrinks, the PC hardware edges out the consoles and the smaller devices, not the other way around.

gizmo wrote: »

The mere fact that former PC heavyweights such as iD and Epic are now designing their engines for consoles is proof of this.

Not necessarily. You have to remember, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony get royalties for every title sold on their consoles. No one gets any for the PC (although MS have tried and failed with their games for windows sh*te). They push those platforms very very hard.

Anyway, onto my own wee contribution...

Through all this debate, people are ignoring the very obvious, the money. The leading platform will be the platform that generates the most cash. And, perhaps surprisingly, the PC is beginning to show strong signs of being the eventual victor.

I can no longer find the link on the bbc site, but there was a conference in Edinburgh earlier in the year that produced figures that showed the highest growth was in the PC games. Specifically pay as you play type ventures (in China mainly) seemed to be the only sector experiencing significant growth.

Secondly, development costs on consoles are going through the roof, and profits aren't following. MS only just hit the black with the 360, Sony is still in the red with the PS3 and while Nintendo is in the black with the wii, tie rates are so low that it may not be sustainable. A very worrying time for console makers.

Thirdly, look at farmville and other social networking/casual games. The games industry as we know it is evolving, the hardcore gamer who spends hundreds on hardware and AAA titles are no longer the big money maker. We will someday be the niche...

GothPunk

Tessa Prehistoric Racketeering wrote: »

Take FPS for instance, the skill cap of a player is limited on the console due to the limited movement you have with a joypad. With a keyboard / mouse combination, that skill cap is much higher. You can be very very precise with your mouse. You can move your corsair much faster, with keybindings I find you can crouch and move better on a keyboard. Take into account how much a player plays on PC / Console. A console player will find the mouse / Keyboard combo difficult to master, while a PC player finds a console difficult to master.

That's a very relevant example for me as whilst I've moved over to consoles for the majority of my gaming within the past 2 years, I still don't really like FPS games on consoles. I would have never gotten addicted to TF2 like I did on the PC if I was playing it on a console.

This brings me nicely onto another point about consoles and I think people have already been making it in this thread in relation to the hardware - in some respects, console games appeal to the lowest common denominator a lot more than a PC games do, and for this reason I don't see the PC 'ultimately winning the console war'. Consoles games are like Michael Bay films - they're expensive to make but make a lot of money because they're easy for the average Jane or Joe to pick up, understand and appreciate all the nice explosions. If we take some of the biggest selling console games, say Halo and Metal Gear, I'd say they fit the description quite well. Even the Final Fantasy games, which are some of the more complex biggest sellers of all time, are simplified with respect to other games within the same genre.

So if the biggest selling console games are epic and flashy, yet easy to understand and pick up, what are the biggest selling PC games? The Sims franchise is the biggest, and whilst it may appear simple the level of micromanagement is very typical of PC games (it seems fitting here to point out that the console versions of The Sims games are much easier and involve less micromanagement).

The Sims games also have a huge modding and creating community, demonstrating another difference between console games and PC games - the game experiences can expand beyond what the developer intended through mod support. Game modding is perhaps one of the greatest things about PC gaming, but surely it is easy to appreciate it is a more niche interest. One of my favourite console games, LittleBigPlanet, brings modding in the form of level creation to consoles in a much more user friendly format which is perhaps more appropriate for consoles. Modding a PC game requires a lot more dedication - something which is perhaps indicative of PC gamers in general.

Are PC games more complex because that's what PC gamers have always demanded? Do they sell more poorly because of this? Is the opposite true for consoles games and gamers (less complex, better sales)? Edit: As leninbenjamin points out, this is already coming true for the PC - the less complex social networking casual games are where the growth is on the PC it seems.

Tessa Prehistoric Racketeering wrote: »

As for the games, the gameplay itself is similar, but I find it much more realistic, entertaining and fulfilling on the PC. Overall, yes I think that the quality of games, the gameplay and choice of games is much better on the PC than any other console. I feel very limited when playing console games

Couldn't we say that there are certain genres that excel on certain platforms compared to others? Perhaps the most accurate statement would be that we feel better served by the PC for certain genres? For me anyway this is true. I enjoy strategy games, MMOs and FPS games, genres which I fele are much better served by the PC. I also enjoy action adventure games, platformers, driving games, RPGs (particularly Japanese RPGs), shmups and fighting games, which I think work much better on consoles and handheld gaming devices. If you look at the biggest selling games in each genre, you'll see they match this platform breakdown. Apart from the FPS, MMO and strategy genres, the PC doesn't excel as well in as many genres as some of the consoles do, and for that reason I don't think the PC is winning the console war. Edit: However, the casual market has to be taken into account here, which the PC and iPhone, and to a lesser extent the Wii, DS and perhaps the PSP are also exploiting. The HD consoles are at least attempting to appeal to the casual market with new motion controllers, but it remains to be seen what this does for growing the user base.

If Valve and Blizzard weren't developing awesome games for the PC, what state would it be in?

Azza

leninbenjamin wrote:

Piracy at this stage has become nothing more than an excuse. Lazy publishers will at times blame piracy rather than own up to their own failings. Statistically speaking piracy is not well known at all, I don't believe any figures I see because there are so many vested interests involved in their acquisition (even so called 'academic studies' are often entirely funded by a publisher).

Secondly, it's also just as easy statistically to equate piracy with increased sales but you rarely ever hear people investigating this because of the vested interests in play. And it has been documented that piracy is a source of growth in other industries, Radiohead being popularised through Napster being the prime example.

Now I'm not saying Piracy doesn't have an impact, but I believe it has much less of an impact than publishers would have you believe.

So basically you ignore evidence because it doesn't suit your viewpoint. The figures I pointed where not found by publishers but by an actual torrent site.
I'm sure some academic studies are run by punblishers but that doesn't they all are funded by publishers or even if they are that they are untrue and biased. Go to a few torrent sites and look around its easy to see how large scale piracy is.

wayne040576

Hercule wrote: »

I am being very cautious of this thread - good luck mods, some heavy moderation will have to take place to stop it from being a fanboy train wreck

One thing strikes me with regards costs:

Id say most ppl in this discussion are "assuming" the cost of a TV or Monitor when comparing the cost of these machines

If including a monitor in the PC price -vs- Console price debate you should include the cost of a TV on top of the cost of the xbox elite

Add that to the costs incurred when the console software itself traditionally costs more then PC (not always the case I know). And as far as I recall, dont xboxs need monthly live subscriptions to play online?

From a purely selfish PC gamer perspective:
PC gamers (like me) are traditionally willing to pay a higher premium on hardware for better quality (lower premium) software. As the difference between a "console game" and a "PC game" gets smaller - (or rather we stop getting PC games and just get watered down console games on PC) the demand for this high premium hardware is going down.

A testament to this is the console port that is CoD:MW2 (to my knowledge) does not appear as part of any "graphics card + game" bundles on PC - unlike most major FPS releases for the last decade.

In our lifetime neither medium has a definitive future - for the moment I look forward to at least another decade of great games on all both platforms :P

I didn't take the cost of the monitor in to account. I didn't even include the pc case and already got to 406. I reckon switching to an AMD based set up could bring the price down a bit. But 400 quid is still a good price for a machine that I think could out do the consoles.

The xbox subscription is 65 quid a year. PS3 is free.

Also bear in mind, with a 360 you don't get the wireless adapter. That's an extra 100 quid.

hooradiation

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Lol

also lol.

*more rubbish*

It's cute that you think you know what your talking about, adorable really.

Consoles are easier to develop for, because fixed hardware is always less tricky to deal with than the constant moving target that is PC development. Claims to the contrary are just wishful thinking.

And you can spin whatever the hell you like about piracy just being some crazy conspiracy, by those oh-so-nefarious publishers, but it's just that. Crazy nonsense that should be saved for the CT forum.

wayne040576

hooradiation wrote: »

It's cute that you think you know what your talking about, adorable really.

Consoles are easier to develop for, because fixed hardware is always less tricky to deal with than the constant moving target that is PC development. Claims to the contrary are just wishful thinking.

And you can spin whatever the hell you like about piracy just being some crazy conspiracy, by those oh-so-nefarious publishers, but it's just that. Crazy nonsense that should be saved for the CT forum.

Microsoft have made the 360 relatively easy to develop for but the ps3 is a different beast altogether. This is why it gets the short end of the stick with multi platform releases were devs don't put the extra effort in. It's also why valve have pretty much given up on it.

gizmo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Piracy at this stage has become nothing more than an excuse. Lazy publishers will at times blame piracy rather than own up to their own failings. Statistically speaking piracy is not well known at all, I don't believe any figures I see because there are so many vested interests involved in their acquisition (even so called 'academic studies' are often entirely funded by a publisher).

Yes and no, while some of the figures may be questionable there fact of the matter is piracy is a significant problems. One need only look at the Modern Warfare 1-2 situation to see how some developers/publishers are reacting to piracy.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Secondly, it's also just as easy statistically to equate piracy with increased sales but you rarely ever hear people investigating this because of the vested interests in play. And it has been documented that piracy is a source of growth in other industries, Radiohead being popularised through Napster being the prime example.

There is a big difference between using the internet to promote a brand and some kid ripping a CD and uploading it to their favourite torrent site. While I do believe that the internet can be used far more in terms of marketing and distribution I do not believe it is the only solution or indeed, a viable alternative to the current setup.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Not necessarily. You have to remember, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony get royalties for every title sold on their consoles. No one gets any for the PC (although MS have tried and failed with their games for windows sh*te). They push those platforms very very hard.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point regarding Epic and iD switching their development muscle to consoles?

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I can no longer find the link on the bbc site, but there was a conference in Edinburgh earlier in the year that produced figures that showed the highest growth was in the PC games. Specifically pay as you play type ventures (in China mainly) seemed to be the only sector experiencing significant growth.

These figures probably included casual gaming and MMOs such as WoW. However they are not reflective of the argument in favour of PC gaming on this thread.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Secondly, development costs on consoles are going through the roof, and profits aren't following. MS only just hit the black with the 360, Sony is still in the red with the PS3 and while Nintendo is in the black with the wii, tie rates are so low that it may not be sustainable. A very worrying time for console makers.

MS have been in the black with the 360 for some time and would have been there sooner had they not had to shell out for the extended RROD warranties. Sony are in the red due to their own stupidity with regards the hardware included in their design. Nintendo have, as far as I am aware, never made a loss on consoles. There is a distinct pattern here one should be able to see.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Thirdly, look at farmville and other social networking/casual games. The games industry as we know it is evolving, the hardcore gamer who spends hundreds on hardware and AAA titles are no longer the big money maker. We will someday be the niche...

Unfortunately true, however as long as big blockbusters such as Modern Warfare 2, Halo et all exist there will always be some time made for the AAA titles.

gizmo

wayne040576 wrote: »

I didn't take the cost of the monitor in to account. I didn't even include the pc case and already got to 406. I reckon switching to an AMD based set up could bring the price down a bit. But 400 quid is still a good price for a machine that I think could out do the consoles.

The xbox subscription is 65 quid a year. PS3 is free.

Also bear in mind, with a 360 you don't get the wireless adapter. That's an extra 100 quid.

You also need to reduce the hard drive down and get rid of the CPU cooler. Monitor shouldn't be included imo.

Those prices regarding the XBox sub and wireless adaptor are only applicable if you get the official gear in brick and mortar store. The Sub can be had for FAR less online and the adaptor is pointless since you could buy a nice little Linksys WRT54GL for cheaper.

GothPunk

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I can no longer find the link on the bbc site, but there was a conference in Edinburgh earlier in the year that produced figures that showed the highest growth was in the PC games. Specifically pay as you play type ventures (in China mainly) seemed to be the only sector experiencing significant growth.

'Core' game sales are also on the rise however, and on a per title basis, I'm willing core games still take in more money. Besides, 'growth' does not necessarily mean big sales. Modern Warfare 2 made something like $550 million in 5 days, I don't think any casual games will reach that level of revenue for a long time.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Secondly, development costs on consoles are going through the roof, and profits aren't following. MS only just hit the black with the 360, Sony is still in the red with the PS3 and while Nintendo is in the black with the wii, tie rates are so low that it may not be sustainable. A very worrying time for console makers.

That's not true. Consoles are the biggest earners for a lot of publishers, e.g. EA. Besides, aren't we talking about money made from games, not hardware? I don't see how it could be a worrying time when the HD twins have great third party support and console sales are increasing year over year. These gains in sales are as a result of price cuts primarily so profits will be down for the short term but up in the long term. That's not even considering increased licensing revenue, sales of accessories and digitally distributed content.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Thirdly, look at farmville and other social networking/casual games. The games industry as we know it is evolving, the hardcore gamer who spends hundreds on hardware and AAA titles are no longer the big money maker. We will someday be the niche...

I don't think either market is a threat to the other - gaming is becoming more mainstream so what's were seeing is an expansion of the market, not casual games cannibalising the sales of 'core' games. If pay to play type ventures and core game sales are experiencing growth, the market is growing overall, not transforming into a casual one.

wayne040576

gizmo wrote: »

You also need to reduce the hard drive down and get rid of the CPU cooler. Monitor shouldn't be included imo.

Those prices regarding the XBox sub and wireless adaptor are only applicable if you get the official gear in brick and mortar store. The Sub can be had for FAR less online and the adaptor is pointless since you could buy a nice little Linksys WRT54GL for cheaper.

I dunno, I don't think I'd get a hard drive under 500GB at this stage. With the size of some game installs. The subscription price is the official one when you go through microsoft with a credit card.

The WRT54GL is a router. I was taling about the the wireless adapter at the back of the 360. Unless you're talking about something like this:
http://timbermheay.wordpress.com/

gizmo

Well bearing in mind the drive in the 360 is a 2.5", there are plenty of drives under 500GB in that catagory. I only mention it because you need to be comparing like with like.

Yep, I know that's what the official price is, doesn't mean it's what you have to pay.

And yes, I'm aware the WRT54GL is a (wireless) router however when combined with the other hardware found in a home with broadband it can be used to preform the same functionality as the MS wireless adaptor (and then some) for considerably less.

Maximilian

Its probably worth bearing in mind that a lot of PC sales figures released don't include online digital download stores a lot of the time, so I think they can be misleading. Those online sales carry a bigger profit margin too. Having said that, console game sales no doubt still dwarf PC sales.

leninbenjamin

hooradiation wrote: »

It's cute that you think you know what your talking about, adorable really.

Interesting. Have you much experience yourself?

That was true 5 - 10 years ago, but my experience with the latest generation differs. Every tried developing for the Xbox360? Limited render targets compared to the PC limits the post processing effects one can add. Ever try programming for the Cell? it's not exactly a walk in the park...

And my views on piracy may be a grand conspiracy theory to you, but I can assure they were formed from my own research in the area and the difficulty in garnering hard cold facts on the issue that were not produced by a publisher whenever one of their AAA did less well than expected.

gizmo wrote: »

Yes and no, while some of the figures may be questionable there fact of the matter is piracy is a significant problems. One need only look at the Modern Warfare 1-2 situation to see how some developers/publishers are reacting to piracy.

The problem isn't piracy itself, the problem is how they react to it. I'm not familiar with the MW situation you refer to above, but I will point to FM09. Now i don't have figures, but reading a lot of forums suggests that many people pirated the game instead of buying it primarily because of the excessive DRM that locked many users out.

gizmo wrote: »

There is a big difference between using the internet to promote a brand and some kid ripping a CD and uploading it to their favourite torrent site.

Yes and no. Radiohead were never explicitly marketed in the U.S. their label turned their back on them as they felt they were too unfashinable, yet Kid A. charted purely because of piracy (top 10 i think? can't remember the specifics). Secondly, I'm sure we all have stories of friends and family who've only come across a famous artist/game which they now adore through piracy. There is as much evidence to suggest piracy can increase sales as there is to suggest it harms it, but certain people will always ignore this because it requires them to accept failings in their own business models.

The problem is a failure of the business models of the large houses to accept that piracy exists. For example, Nintendo nearly put themselves out of business because of choosing the cartridge over the CD for the N64, and I was always led to believe their primary motivation for sticking with cartridges was fear of piracy when it came to CDs.

gizmo wrote: »

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point regarding Epic and iD switching their development muscle to consoles?

My point is there other reasons for the switch than the ones being debated.

gizmo wrote: »

These figures probably included casual gaming and MMOs such as WoW. However they are not reflective of the argument in favour of PC gaming on this thread.

I don't follow. Why do casual games and MMOs not count? They are afterall the fastest growing sector of the games industry.

gizmo wrote: »

MS have been in the black with the 360 for some time and would have been there sooner had they not had to shell out for the extended RROD warranties. Sony are in the red due to their own stupidity with regards the hardware included in their design. Nintendo have, as far as I am aware, never made a loss on consoles. There is a distinct pattern here one should be able to see.

Again, I don't follow. What is this pattern? Sony and MS struggling to make money.

And as for Nintendo, well Nintendo never made a loss on consoles that's true, but a sizeable reason is because sales were so phenomenally over initial estimates. And the reason for the large sales was because they targeted consumers who normally wouldn't purchase a console, consumers they are now struggling to encouraging to sustain their investment in the brand. Maybe I'm stark raving, but I thought I remembered reading recently enough that Nintendo lowered their financial projections?

leninbenjamin

GothPunk wrote: »

'Core' game sales are also on the rise however, and on a per title basis, I'm willing core games still take in more money. Besides, 'growth' does not necessarily mean big sales. Modern Warfare 2 made something like $550 million in 5 days, I don't think any casual games will reach that level of revenue for a long time.

I'm not sure that's significant. Core means 360 and PS3? But these are associated with the least profitable platforms. On the other hand, Sales on the most profitable platforms of Nintendo are way down according to said article...

Revenue does not equate to profit. And it's profit, and more specifically profit margins that are important, because of it's significant to the return on investment. Perhaps I should have stressed this. And publishers profits for the 'core platforms' have been stagnating unless my info is out of date...

gizmo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

There is as much evidence to suggest piracy can increase sales as there is to suggest it harms it...

That I do not accept in the slightest. In terms of music, one need only look at the fall in revenue in the US to see this. Note, not fall in CD sales as that can be explained by digital distribution but actual falls in company revenues. The counter argument here is that as company revenues fall, artist revenues were seen to increase but in the context of game development there is no comparison.

As for games there has been multiple examples of developers looking into this themselves, for example MW1, World Of Goo and a couple of iPhone developers, and they have found that those people who pirate their games rarely go on to purchase them, simply by the fact that a significant time after release the same users are still online playing their pirated copies.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

My point is there other reasons for the switch than the ones being debated.

Oh I understand there are other reasons but I don't understand how your example applies. You can still develop on the PC as your primary platform and release/port onto consoles however the two companies are now targeting the consoles as their lead platforms and will then also release on to PCs - it's a complete reversal of development from previous generations.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I don't follow. Why do casual games and MMOs not count? They are afterall the fastest growing sector of the games industry.

Well I did say in the context of this debate, the reason being that 90% of the people here are referring to the development of AAA games on the PC rather than the latest Popcap game or one behemoth in the MMO genre.[/QUOTE]

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Again, I don't follow. What is this pattern? Sony and MS struggling to make money.

MS are not struggling to make money, as early as November 2006 they were earning a profit, albeit a small one, on their console. This is on top of the XBL revenues generated from subscriptions. The pattern refers to the fact that Microsoft build a console which was easy to develop for and was comprised of compoents which they believed (and indeed were proved right) would allow them to make a profit. Bar the RROD issue I see no problem in this.

Sony on the other hand went in a totally different direction, attempting to build an all-in-one wonder machine which completely backfired on them. From the problems with Cell yields to the necessity of adding in a dedicated GPU to the inclusion of a Bluray (which I'm debating is unnecessary in this generation over in a PS thread) they basically set themselves up to make a massive loss. This was hoped to be countered by playing on the Playstation brand and harping on about it's 10 year life cycle. Unfortunately, until recently the latter has fallen on deaf ears and with most developers already pushing the architecture pretty hard, I can't see it lasting 10 years unless of course they included a certain period of co-existence with the Playstation 4. The crux of the issue here is, Sony won't make the same mistake again.

Nintendo, on the other hand, may have taken a risk with the Wii but it was an educated one based on the experience the company has had.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

And as for Nintendo, well Nintendo never made a loss on consoles that's true, but a sizeable reason is because sales were so phenomenally over initial estimates. And the reason for the large sales was because they targeted consumers who normally wouldn't purchase a console, consumers they are now struggling to encouraging to sustain their investment in the brand. Maybe I'm stark raving, but I thought I remembered reading recently enough that Nintendo lowered their financial projections?

The Wii was their first console that targeted consumers who normally didn't purchase a console.

The lowering of their financial projections is fairly obvious by the way, given the huge numbers already sold. Despite this it is still outselling the hugely successful PS2 over the same period and, despite the drop in sales in recent times, will probably still outsell it over its life cycle.

ScumLord

hooradiation wrote: »

The PC market is currently very niche and PC owners have done a fantastic job of keeping it that way by pirating like nobodies business.

There's over 1 billion pcs in the world, that's hardly niche now is it and what I was getting at is with more and more people using PCs on a daily basis the pc is becoming less and less scary. In the last 5 years I've seen just about everybody in my small farming town buy a PC and say things like "I never thought I'd see the day"

Consoles are easier to develop for, the piracy is far less of an issue (with the exception of perhaps the DS), and more to the point they are something that people can just pick up, hook into another familiar piece of technology (the TV) and play with and thats something that the PC can never be.

Windows 7 makes all this a breeze, I can plug my pc into any tele probably easier than any console because it uses ordinary cables.

gizmo wrote: »

PCs will never win the console war because PCs aren't consoles. Not to be pedantic or anything but that is the reality of it. There will always be a market for a fixed hardware unit which can just sit there and play games with minimal fuss.

Again windows 7 makes the PC as easy to use as a fixed hardware unit.

This was actually discussed in another thread for quite some time and I think the general consensus was we'll see consoles becoming more PC like rather than vice versa. That being said, as I mentioned above, it's the fact that you can buy a piece of hardware which is guaranteed to play games for a certain period of time at the same level of quality as everyone else who bought it which will ensure there will always be a market for consoles.

The consoles already are PC like and I didn't mean to imply the PC would become a console more that with people having a pc sitting there, they're more likely to start playing games on the PC than spontaneously go out a buy a console to see if they like gaming.

Monotype

Consoles will probably always have their place. It's a standardisation of components. People are too lazy to figure out what kind of computer they have, but it's clear with a console -and they are willing to pay a premium in the games for this.

Xbox and PS are drifting closer and closer to the PC with internet applications, having to install the games etc. I don't see a place for these in the world, -i.e., they don't have enough to define themselves as a separate entity. But they will last another while since they will be pushed, and people will buy.
The wii is definitely a step in the right direction for consoles. It absolutely offered something the PC and other consoles couldn't really at the time.

I think the Windows Experience Index could prove useful in the future. It provides the standardisation that many console players look for.
PCs are getting smaller and more accessible, so we'll see where that goes.

leninbenjamin

gizmo wrote: »

That I do not accept in the slightest. In terms of music, one need only look at the fall in revenue in the US to see this.

Well, just on the music, there are a hell of a lot of other possible reasons for that fall in revenue that are always ignored, because, I believe, it's more convenient for the CEOs and management of said companies to blame an external factor they have no control over to their shareholders, than accept responsibility for a loss.

And before you say it, the obvious reason is that the product was sh*te. Some of the biggest acts of recent years were completely ignored by the major producers until they had already proven their success. Radiohead are one such example, Blur are another. Even today you have the backlash to the Xfactor and that, there is a very strong argument that par of those drops in sales were due to their failure to give people what they wanted.

Secondly, no one has ever tried to study the impact of globalisation on music either. 20 years ago, people's only exposure to music was radio or TV, it was easy for producers to get their products out and manipulate the market. Now, with modern media, people have much more exposure to small niches and independent producers as opposed to the big ones. The market is much more fragmented than it used be, and this places a lot of pressure on companies to reach customers and maintain sales.

Third, whenever I see publisher citing piracy as the primary reason for a product performing poorly, they never explain where their original projections came from. Do they just magically expect AAA sales because they have invested AAA levels intro production? Commercial flops existed long before piracy and the digital era... Yet any AAA that fails these days is because of piracy it seems. That's why I'm somewhat sceptical.

Fourth, and here's the big one, music is disposable income. People's incomes are disposable. Young people are traditionally their biggest market, yet all of a sudden there's the internet, and games, and new technology to compete for people's time and disposable income. The games industry in particular has experienced phenomenal growth since the heyday of the big record producers, yet you never, ever hear this being touted as a possible reason for the music industry's decline. Why?

And, yes, there is evidence to suggest it can increase sales, or at the very least the effects of piracy on sales are ambiguous. For example, this link shows a clear lack of cause and effect. Using those statistics I can run a regression that points to piracy increasing sales or depending on my mood a regression to show it reduces sales. This is the ambiguity inherent to the practice of economics and financial statistics.

Anyway, I digress... suffice to say, I believe the 'piracy' card is an overplayed hand when it comes to explaining poor product performance. I accept that may be a controversial opinion.

gizmo wrote: »

MS are not struggling to make money, as early as November 2006 they were earning a profit, albeit a small one, on their console.

Again, you're missing the bigger picture. Unit profitability does not equate to return on investment and company profits! The Microsoft games division only turned its first profit on it's day to day operations in the third quarter of 2008! That's a lot of red to be made up...

L31mr0d

You know I want to reply but I fear it's just going to get washed under by another trite "the pyrits r killing my gamezors, oh noes!!!"

Anyway, I'll try to keep it short so that everyone can have space for their opinions on piracy... again... again...

Tessa Prehistoric Racketeering wrote: »

I think you might be bringing in your personal experience a little too much, everyone I know that owns a gaming PC builds or modifies it in some shape or form.

I don't doubt that there will still be a percentage of people that will still manually build PC's in the future. However, I would be willing to put money on this number never becoming the majority, and never being supported largely by game developers.

My friends Dad went into repairing TVs for a living back in the 70's because he believed people would always want to repair the parts of a TV rather then to buy a new one. Prices dropped and TV's became expendable. He had to find another job. Interest in upgrading PC parts will never be more than a passing hobby for people.

L31mr0d wrote: »

The console looks set to become what the PC should of been nearly a decade ago

leninbenjamin wrote: »

You're on the right lines, but you have it the wrong way around. The console is becoming more like the PC.

cherryghost

lookie here

i built a pc with all mod cons for 500 quid. and it would play any game you throw at it on max (except crysis maybe). it includes peripherals. tell me its not win. i know it is.