Is there a need for consoles?

[MultiVaC]

The Dark Messiah demo was incredibly short. But I've managed to get a good 6 hours out of the 20 minute demo by spawning enemies and doing all kinds of crazy stuff. You can't don't that in a console. And you can't have cool things like Garry's mod. Maybe this will change in the future, but consoles won't replace PCs, they might BECOME PCs, but they won't replace them. What happens when you get upgradable parts? Higher cost, incompatibility, all the stuff people complain about with PCs. Consoles can't have all the advantages of PCs and still have the advatages they have now. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Solver]

It's interesting how consoles now are a bit like PCs 15 years ago. Not in terms of power obviously, but how every console has the same specs. That's an advantage of consoles, you buy a 360 game, it works on a 360. With PCs, there are tons of configurations now - beyond just weak/powerful, you get all those different hardware vendors and combinations... in the old times, it was simpler. Say, you had a 486 and 4 MB RAM, you'd run the game.

 

[Asus]

The Dark Messiah demo was incredibly short. But I've managed to get a good 6 hours out of the 20 minute demo by spawning enemies and doing all kinds of crazy stuff. You can't don't that in a console. And you can't have cool things like Garry's mod. Maybe this will change in the future, but consoles won't replace PCs, they might BECOME PCs, but they won't replace them. What happens when you get upgradable parts? Higher cost, incompatibility, all the stuff people complain about with PCs. Consoles can't have all the advantages of PCs and still have the advatages they have now. It just doesn't work that way.

I agree, that is a big reason why I perfer playing games on the PC in general.
I played the last 3 GTA games first at my friends house a few times when they first came out for the PS2. But I had more fun a year later when I played them on my PC because after I beat the game I could modify the car's attributes, and import skins/models for the player model, buildings, or cars.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I just spent the better part of the day upgrading parts for my PC that have waiting to go in for months, and the computer rejected them because of a driver conflict, undoing everything I'd done. Sometimes you just wanna play games, and not all of us are puter savvy. So yeah there's need.

 

[sabre0001]

I just spent the better part of the day upgrading parts for my PC that have waiting to go in for months, and the computer rejected them because of a driver conflict, undoing everything I'd done. Sometimes you just wanna play games, and not all of us are puter savvy. So yeah there's need.

That is one of the points that I am trying to address. It is now (or will be soon) possible to upgrade parts of your XBox or PS3...

Doesn't this take away from what consoles have always been about - the simplicity of Plug-in and play. The line is starting to blur for when your PC and consoles meet and instead are starting to interweave.

 

[-Psy-]

Completely wrong. The Playstation, Playstation 2 and Xbox all cost more than the Xbox 360 core at release. It still costs the same amount to buy a brand new top-of-the-line graphics card and to pick up a brand new console.

But only people who have a hell of a lot of money buy top-of-the-range graphics cards...

 

[Solver]

Hm, is that really true? Is a console cheaper than a graphics card one notch below the very best?

 

[-Psy-]

Hell no. The PS3 is going to cost £400.

You can get the X1900GT for £150 and the 7900GT for £180.

 

[Core407]

That is one of the points that I am trying to address. It is now (or will be soon) possible to upgrade parts of your XBox or PS3...

Doesn't this take away from what consoles have always been about - the simplicity of Plug-in and play. The line is starting to blur for when your PC and consoles meet and instead are starting to interweave.

What parts of the 360 will be upgradeable? Other than a possibly larger HDD and HD-DVD drive, there's nothing else planned for the market and these two upgrades aren't really game-related.

The simplicity of plug-in and play is one key advantage to console and the ability to just sit back on the couch and play a game for an hour or two is appealing.

I don't know who thinks that console gaming revolves around simplicitic games, because it doesn't.

 

[Stigmata]

What parts of the 360 will be upgradeable? Other than a possibly larger HDD and HD-DVD drive, there's nothing else planned for the market and these two upgrades aren't really game-related.

The simplicity of plug-in and play is one key advantage to console and the ability to just sit back on the couch and play a game for an hour or two is appealing.

I don't know who thinks that console gaming revolves around simplicitic games, because it doesn't.

Agreed 100%.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, CONSOLE GAMES DO NOT EQUAL SIMPLE GAMES, AND PC GAMES DO NOT EQUAL THE BEST GAMES. Both platforms have great games (see Legend of Zelda, Half-Life), and both platforms have complex games (see Final Fantasy, Age of Empires). And both platforms have shitty games (I don't play shitty games ).

Pros of PC:
Highest hardware performance
Greater control fidelity in FPS/TPS, RTS, RPG, etc.
Ability to fully customize and personalize your system
Can be upgraded to retain hardware performance across generations

Cons of PC:
Very high cost required to attain high performance.
Reduced control fidelity in Racing, Platformer, 2D Fighter, etc.
Lack of a system-hardware standard as a platform = lower performance (attempt to optimize for near-infinite hardware sets)

Pros of Console:
Low cost for high performance
Hardware standard -> games are optimized for one set of hardware, better performance overall
Greater control fidelity in Racing, Platformer, 2D Fighter, etc.

Cons of Console:
Cannot be upgraded to retain performance across generations
Reduced control fidelity in FPS/TPS, RTS, RPG, etc.
System customization is usually poor to unavailable (X360 excepted)

There. That's pretty much all there is to it. Please, somebody try to argue with that, because it'll make my day a LOT more entertaining

 

[Core407]

Greater control fidelity in Racing, Platformer, 2D Fighter, etc.

That can be fixed with a gamepad.

 

[Stigmata]

Greater control fidelity in Racing, Platformer, 2D Fighter, etc.

That can be fixed with a gamepad.

That doesn't count, it's an extraneous cost

 

[Axyon]

Hell no. The PS3 is going to cost £400.

You can get the X1900GT for £150 and the 7900GT for £180.

Holy christ, want to skew that comparison any more? You choose the blatantly overpriced console, and the cards that aren't the pinnacle of graphics technology at the moment. As it stands, the X1900 XT-X hovers at £250+ and the 7950 GX2 £300+. The 360 is £210/280 depending on Core/Premium.

 

[-Psy-]

But you would only spend that much on a card if you are filthy rich.

 

[Solver]

Ah, but the "pinnacle" is really often some money-extorting BS. I don't know too much about ATI cards, but I can say for sure that the 7950 GX2, which you mention, is a total overkill for any game out there. A 8700 GTX would run any game currently out there most comfortably.

And let's not forget the fact that a PC with bleeding edge hardware will often give better graphics, as everyone admitted with, for example, Oblivion. Yes, that game is a beast to run, so I can see why some want it on the 360, but a high-end PC has better graphics for it.

EDIT:

But you would only spend that much on a card if you are filthy rich.

Eh... it may be embarassing to admit, but to me, PC parts seems like the most tempting way to spend money. Yes, there are other things I like, but if I have extra money, I'm always tempted to buy something for the PC or PC related first.

 

[Core407]

Holy christ, want to skew that comparison any more? You choose the blatantly overpriced console, and the cards that aren't the pinnacle of graphics technology at the moment. As it stands, the X1900 XT-X hovers at £250+ and the 7950 GX2 £300+. The 360 is £210/280 depending on Core/Premium.

Not to mention the PS3 isn't just a videocard.

I'd like to see someone build a PC comparable to the PS3 for under $600.

 

[-Psy-]

Well, when you buy a PC for Gaming you have to keep in mind that your going to have to keep upgrading every year or 2.

 

[Solver]

But if you buy a console, then you have to keep in mind that in 2 years, PCs are going to be more powerful and with better graphics, too. Same thing, really.

Besides, you only need to upgrade your PC for gaming every year if you want all the graphically intensive games. I'm quite fine with rare upgrades - I don't neccessarily awnt the games with top-of-the-line graphics, and, as I'm a BIG believer in "gameplay over other consideraitons", I absolutely don't mind playing games on low graphical settings.

 

[Asus]

But if you buy a console, then you have to keep in mind that in 2 years, PCs are going to be more powerful and with better graphics, too. Same thing, really.

Besides, you only need to upgrade your PC for gaming every year if you want all the graphically intensive games. I'm quite fine with rare upgrades - I don't neccessarily awnt the games with top-of-the-line graphics, and, as I'm a BIG believer in "gameplay over other consideraitons", I absolutely don't mind playing games on low graphical settings.

I think that is a point a lot of people are missing. They put 'High Cost of upgrading" on the PC side but then don't put the respective console negative of "hardware not as quick as an upgraded PC after a few years" to match or "constantly better performance via upgrades" on the PC as a plus. Reminds me of double entry accounting. :x

 

[CptStern]

consoles cant really be compared to pcs ...I use my pc for pretty much everything ..from banking to shopping to information gathering to pron'ing ..I use my xbox for ..playing games ..occasionally as a dvd player

 

[Warbie]

There. That's pretty much all there is to it. Please, somebody try to argue with that, because it'll make my day a LOT more entertaining

You missed out what I see as the biggest con for pc gaming. Not that many pc games actually get released. Of those, few are decent or original, perhaps a handful a year, and only cover a few genre. It's not uncommon for there to be a drought of quality games that lasts months - all the while a wide variety of good games are appearing across the consoles.

I also disagree to some extent on your comments mouse & keyboard vs joypad. While a m&k is well suited to fps, rts and inventory/menu heavy titles etc, it is a poor control method for almost everything else. I'll admit that the joypad is inferior in a few areas (namely rts, point and click etc), but on the whole it is a far superior control method for gaming in general. I don't think it's worse than a mouse for fps, just different, and much prefer it for rpgs (not that that matters - when was the last good rpg released on the pc?)

You also missed out on what I think is the biggest pro for pc gaming - namely online gaming communities, forums, websites, chat rooms, tournaments/ladders. There may not be that many pc games, but we take the great ones and milk them for all they're worth and make them so much more.

 

[Solver]

Can you elaborate further on the quantity of games released? I don't know from first-hand experience, we don't have game shops here, so basically, at a computer store you can buy a decent number of PC games, and a few PS2/Xbox titles.

I can believe that there are more console games, even... but is that really even important? With the amount of games released, for any platform, you're only going to play a fraction of them, even if you're an avid gamer.

I just checked http://www.gamespy.com/index/release.html . There's a fair amount of releases for every platform, and there are definitely more releases than anyone is going to play. So why does quantity matter?

 

[Warbie]

So why does quantity matter?

I think the ratio of quality to crap is roughly equal on the pc and consoles. The difference being that a shed load more games are released on consoles, which also means alot more quality (imo, of course).

I'm not setting out to bash pcs here, but have often found myself frustratedly spinning my thumbs while waiting for something to play (and glaring with resentment at my £1000+ gaming rig)

 

[Solver]

Interesting if so. I never experienced the problem of having nothing to play, and that being a PC-only gamer. Partially, that's because I don't spend all of my free time playing games. A more important consideration probably is that I tend to stick with games that provide a lot of playtime. Like a strategy game that I can play on and off for three years, I'm certainly a player of few games, so to speak.

Warbie, out of curiosity, how many games have you played, say, in 2006 so far?

 

[Warbie]

Warbie, out of curiosity, how many games have you played, say, in 2006 so far?

Quite a few ... 10+ on the DS, 7 or 8 on the 360, a few on the pc, and quite a few old faves on the GC, DC etc. I don't actually spend that much time gaming these days (usually just a few hours here and there on the DS), but do have binges with friends every other week and go through quite a few titles in a sitting.

 

[-Psy-]

Without online gaming I would be bored and would spend more time gaming on consoles.

Basically all I played last year was CS:S (and maybe a bit of CoD) and so far this year it's been BF2. All because of the online community.

 

[Krynn72]

All because of the online community.

PC wins with that statement.