PC games will LOSE market to Console...per PriceWaterhouse!

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

Debating back and forth with Renzatic, I remembered an old article I read by PriceWaterhouseCoopers one of the big 4 public accounting firms. They did a report on the global outlook of videogames. First here is the link...

<a href="http://www.pwcglobal.com/extweb/newcolth.nsf/0/152B12C821D261FE85256E28007668C9?OpenDocument"> Global Games Report </a>

Here are some snippets for those sad sad PC gamers..
"sales of game titles to consumers reached an all-time high of $6.9 billion in 2002, a gain of 8 percent over 2001. Advancing digital technology has continued to drive growth in the industry, enabling the development of ever more sophisticated platforms and software to feed the appetites of gamers" -notice the word 'platforms'

"PwC forecasts that global video game software spending will expand from $21.2 billion in 2002 to $35.8 billion in 2007, growing at a compound annual rate of 11%." - this is why Microsoft is in this to stay folks, they aren't going to surrender a $35 billion pie to Nintendo and Sony

"The U.S. market is projected to rise from $7.2 billion in 2002 to $12.3 billion by 2007" - So after the first year of the new consoles, growth will be over 33% compared to today. So there is room for more than one, maybe even more than 2 players.

"The prediction for Europe/Middle East/Asia is that it will progress from $4.9 billion in 2002 to $9.3 billion in 2007" - Note Japan is included in this figure, this proves that Japanese developers better start catering more to US buyers, cause the US alone kills Europe and Asia in market share.

"As documented in Outlook, the average age of an interactive-game player is 28, with console games skewing younger than PC games. With a more mature and diverse audience, game makers have an opportunity to provide content that reflects greater sophistication and wider interests" - You hear that Nintendo, you better wake up before you get shook up, 'content that reflects greater sophistication'

OKAY GET READY PC GAMERS TO CRY
"Principal Industry Drivers

Next-generation technologies
New console hardware, online gaming and wireless gaming will propel video game market growth from 2003 to 2005. PwC predicts that sales of these categories will blossom at the expense of PC games, which will lose market share due to technological disadvantages and older demographics. But the momentum generated by multiple technologies will enable video game software to surpass Internet access as the fastest-growing overall consumer category" - hear that technological disadvantages for the PC, Ps2 cell, the xBox2 with 6 G5 processors, regular home pc's won't match that, cause the PC market hasn't even been able to use the power they currently have. And consoles connecting to the internet, see why Gate's is putting so much into LIVE. People XBOX is here to stay.

"New console introductions typically embody substantial advancements in technology, which drive the market. PwC predicts that in 2007, these will include consoles that facilitate fast and easy connection to the Internet for online gaming—including installed broadband connectivity" - Well, looks like they XBOX was too futuristic after all.

Okay, so what about PCs ruling online gaming?
"Online gaming, with its remote multiple-player dynamic, has caught on with consumers and continues to gain popularity. Outlook expects that subscriptions will become the dominant distribution model for online games, and that consoles (rather than PCs) will be the dominant platform." -okay, pc people, you got it? Subscription based(can u say LIVE) and console DOMINANT. Now if you are a PC person, saying you will never adopt consoles as a primary gaming platform, well most of your PC bretheren will see the obvious advantages you don't see.

The big thing here is projected growth to $35 billion dollars worldwide, people, if you think MS is gonna give up, you are crazy. And the weird thing is Sony maybe setting themselves up for a big battle. They are gambling with unproven technology, and all new technology has bugs, this cell chip has problematic written all over it. MS is going with possibly 6 motorola powerpc chips, that are proven and stable. Now if PS3 is problematic, it won't be the death call for Sony, but it will tighten the race. People lived with the PS2 problems with largely no complaints, I don't think they will be that forgiving next time, especially after sticking with PS2 for almost another 3 years.

[PapaSmurf]

And for some reason I'm not crying. I don't know why, but maybe its just that I'll believe it when I see it, and even then I doubt it will have a major effect on the already great PC community.

[Renzatic Gear]

I don't get it...why would most of the hardcore PC fanbase wanna move away from the tried and true free out-of-the-box online gaming platform and go with a subscription based setup? Other than the one advantage of having everything at your fingertips instead of having to use a few 3rd party programs it's not much different...save for a pricetag per month.

Of course technology has always been a big deal with the PC scene, every new console cycle there are a few articles predicting the death of computer gaming cuz such and such machine is so powerful that the PC's can't compete. It happend with the Playstation, that was back when Doom was all big news and games like Twisted Metal and Wipeout were putting PC games to shame...we all know what happened there. Then the PS2 with it's amazing hardware...ditto. Now it'll happen again.

See, computers are sorta funky in the way that they're more than the sum of their parts. Take the PS2's CPU...in terms of raw horsepower it's far more powerful than an X86 CPU, and if it were pushed harder it could easily give an AMD or Intel processor a run for its money. Yet you don't see games that look much better on the PS2. I wonder why?

Also, the fact that computers are constantly reinventing themselves is another big advantage...although an expensive one I'll admit. Take those 6 Mac G5 processors...does that mean that the Nextbox is 6 times more powerful than what some would consider the fastest PC platform out right now? Nope, what it means is that it'll be able to handle 6 threads of information at one time...a big advantage, true, but one that can be equaled by even an old 32 bit processor as long as it can achieve a fast enough clockspeed.

So when the Nextbox comes out in 2005-6 it'll be one step ahead of the PC. The graphics card being introduced by ATI is only one step ahead of the R420's that are about to show up on the scene within the next few months..by the time it hits store shelves most PC's will be capable of running at 8-10 Ghz or more and games will probably be requiring at least 3-4 Ghz will be hitting store shelves. That advantage will continue on until it finally surpasses the consoles until the next wave hits in 2010.

Oh yeah, the bit about computers being unable to use their latest and greatest hardware is true...even the most recent games are usually a full generation behind the most recent technology, but even then the games are still a full generation ahead of the Xbox and it's just been out for 2 years now. So PC's will remain exactly what they are in the near future...the platform of choice for the uber-leet tweakers.

[yacobschlomo]

"The U.S. market is projected to rise from $7.2 billion in 2002 to $12.3 billion by 2007" - So after the first year of the new consoles, growth will be over 33% compared to today. So there is room for more than one, maybe even more than 2 players.

"The prediction for Europe/Middle East/Asia is that it will progress from $4.9 billion in 2002 to $9.3 billion in 2007" - Note Japan is included in this figure, this proves that Japanese developers better start catering more to US buyers, cause the US alone kills Europe and Asia in market share.



Japan is actually included in the Asia/Pacific region, which PwC says is the largest video game market. They predict it will still be the largest come 2007.

[no.1gamer]

I find all these claims to be a little far fetched. People have been making rumors about the death of computer gaming for as long as I can remember. Although the Atari and Commodore computers did a miserable death, I think the PC is here to stay. Take a look at sales of the Sims (and all the expansion packs for it), then tell me PC gaming is dying.

And to say that PCs don't "rule online gaming" is insane. Every time I log onto battle.net there is about a quarter of a million people logged on. Are there even that many Xbox Live subscribers in total?

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

Well Renzatic,

I don't think the bottomline is pure power in either case. I think the primary concern is convenience and inclusion. It is infinitely more convenient to play videogames than PC games. And as long as the quality is good or in the future possibly better, why would you not? When you buy a videogame, you pop it in and you are up and running. On the PC side, you SHOULD first defrag your harddive, check for any new drivers or patches, read the readme.txt file, go through the installation and configuration, calibrate your controllers, and hit the executable and pray you don't have any problems. You and I are so used to that, it doesn't present a problem. But for people who aren't PC savvy, they dread this. Then for homes that only have one PC, what happens if someone is using the PC? Or someone is downloading something, etc. etc. etc. And if you have a problem that you can't figure out, you have to go to the web, or call up buddies, or you are just stuck, nowaday you can't even return open software at most places. The whole process is second and nature and something you are use to dealing with, as I was, but for the average Joe, they don't want to go through with this.
As far as inclusion, when was the last time everyone gathered around the computer screen to play/watch a PC game? It just doesn't happen. But videogames on the big screen are cool, if you have a party, friends over, or just with the family. Usually more than one person can play and see, the controllers are easy to pass around. PC gaming is a solitary activity. Multiplayer games simply aren't possible, in terms of cooperative play on the same machine.
There are a lot of reason why PC gaming is not growing. Talking about the internet, what if you do hook up with some friends for some PC gaming, chances are one or two of you will have a PC crash or glitch. Now, you all have to start all over.
The bottomline is comfort, convenience, inclusion, big screen, controls and even more reasons. Some people love PC gaming, but it is simply not growing as fast as console gaming. As far as why pay a subscription, that is easy, you want the service. There are people out there who are absolutely obsessed about getting as much as they can for free. All they care about is if they can get over, they never factor in time, frustration, and fun as a price to paid. I would rather pay for an online service that guarantees a secure environment, consistent features, great matchmaking and communication, for a reasonable price. I turn on the XBOX immediately I see all my friends and what they are playing, I pop in a disk, in less than a minute i'm joining the lobby, then the game. It will take you 5 -15 minutes to boot-up the PC, call, email, or use some service to find friends, then they have to be playing the same game or using the same service. For $7 a month, i'll stick with LIVE.

[Renzatic Gear]

I saw a similar argument to this on the other forum I visit. They put it best when they said that while the computer scene isn't growing, it isn't shrinking either. In the end it'll always be a matter of tastes.

I think a good parallel to the console vs. PC scene could go like this: everyone likes music, right? Some people can get one of those all-in-one home theatre setups from Wal-Mart and still enjoy their music just as much as some guy that goes out and blows $3000 on a souped up Dolby Digital reciever, some fiber optic cables, a 20 inch subwoofer and 8 sets of 3-ways. It's still the same songs, and both people are gonna enjoy em, but the guy with the big ass setup wants to push it a little farther and get more from it. The same thing can be said (for the most part) about people that play games on the PC.

I could play Prince of Persia on the Xbox and still have fun with it, but I like the crispness you get from playing it with 4x AA and 16x Anisotropic filtering on a 21 inch monitor displaying the game at 1024x768. It's a matter of taste, some like to jump right in and some like to fiddle around with it to extend the experience.

lol, and there's no way in hell it takes 5-15 minutes to boot up a computer. It takes me all of 15 seconds to go from the bios to the desktop. And getting a group of people together to play an online game is about the same as it is on the desktop...call a few friends up, give out an IP address, and wait a few minutes for everyone to join.

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

Sorry I said, "It will take you 5 -15 minutes to boot-up the PC, call, email, or use some service to find friends, then they have to be playing the same game or using the same service."

Meaning from boot-up to gameplay.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

I saw a similar argument to this on the other forum I visit. They put it best when they said that while the computer scene isn't growing, it isn't shrinking either. In the end it'll always be a matter of tastes.

I think a good parallel to the console vs. PC scene could go like this: everyone likes music, right? Some people can get one of those all-in-one home theatre setups from Wal-Mart and still enjoy their music just as much as some guy that goes out and blows $3000 on a souped up Dolby Digital reciever, some fiber optic cables, a 20 inch subwoofer and 8 sets of 3-ways. It's still the same songs, and both people are gonna enjoy em, but the guy with the big ass setup wants to push it a little farther and get more from it. The same thing can be said (for the most part) about people that play games on the PC.

I could play Prince of Persia on the Xbox and still have fun with it, but I like the crispness you get from playing it with 4x AA and 16x Anisotropic filtering on a 21 inch monitor displaying the game at 1024x768. It's a matter of taste, some like to jump right in and some like to fiddle around with it to extend the experience.

lol, and there's no way in hell it takes 5-15 minutes to boot up a computer. It takes me all of 15 seconds to go from the bios to the desktop. And getting a group of people together to play an online game is about the same as it is on the desktop...call a few friends up, give out an IP address, and wait a few minutes for everyone to join.

I''ll just chime in that if a "console" did all the things you wanted to do with your PC(high resolution and whatnot) and played games, then what the hell would you need a PC for? The PC market will get slowly swallowed whole like the pit thingy in "Return of the Jedi". Upgrades won't be necessary or even desirable. PC gaming as we know it will go the way of the dodo bird, bell bottoms, and Michael Jackson's career.

[Hieremias]

I''ll just chime in that if a "console" did all the things you wanted to do with your PC(high resolution and whatnot) and played games, then what the hell would you need a PC for? The PC market will get slowly swallowed whole like the pit thingy in "Return of the Jedi". Upgrades won't be necessary or even desirable. PC gaming as we know it will go the way of the dodo bird, bell bottoms, and Michael Jackson's career.
Someday--I'm not entirely sure when--these PC gaming doomsday prophets will <i>eventually</i> tire of constantly being wrong. With every console generation there's always the crowd that predicts the death of PC gaming, but within a year the PCs are already many steps ahead of those consoles (that are forced to stay stagnant for at least 3 or 4 years). Then a new console generation is released, rinse and repeat.

The doomsayers will at some point acknowledge that there will always be a market for people who are willing to spend time and money on a PC to get the best hardware and best games, that there are people unwilling to compromise with an almost-as-good console that comes with the typical console library of shallow action games, platformers, sports, and a dozen Mario knockoffs, all designed for the console gamers' 5-minute attention span.

Turn-based and real-time strategy, in-depth RPGs (when consolers think KotoR is an in-depth RPG, you know there's an audience gap), and squad-based tactical games will always have an audience, and you can't find these on the consoles.

But maybe I'm giving humanity too much credit. There are people who still think communism is a good idea, there are people who cheer for the Cubs, and I'm sure there will always be people who will think PC gaming will just fade away. Being wrong over and over and over and over again doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.

[asking-for-it]

Fact is though, there will always be advantages to PC gaming over console gaming. Yeah, sure, I have no problem with my consoles or games, but console games just don't have the same kind of depth in most cases.

And there are just to many games (and types of games) you can't find on consoles. And when they do make it to a console, my guess would be is that the game has been altered (sometimes a little, sometimes a lot) from the original PC version. There are many examples of this out there, just look around.

Plus, PC users can get many of the console games at one point (Or even before console gamers). GTA, Halo, etc... even nintendo is trying to get in on the PC gaming scene. My point being, there is, and always will be, plenty of money in the PC gaming scene.

As far as multiplayer gaming goes, I'd guess over half of the PC games out there have online play. And there's no shortage of online gamers either. I'm sure consoles will get pretty far into the online scene, but I don't think they could ever trade blows with the PC. Lets face it, most people have a computer and the internet... And most of the people I know play games online. I can't think of many people I know that play games on xbox live.

Now the downside to PCs... Expense. Now computer hardware prices are far more than a console, but I believe if a person has a good system, they wont have to worry about upgrading anytime soon.

What people don't consider is the fact that everytime a new console comes out, they run out and buy it for whatever price tag they happen to have stuck on it, and those prices don't go down to fast. And looking at the direction that consoles are going in, you console gamers might just end up shelling out money for costly new hardware as well.

[And_so_it_goes]

Fact is though, there will always be advantages to PC gaming over console gaming. Yeah, sure, I have no problem with my consoles or games, but console games just don't have the same kind of depth in most cases.

And there are just to many games (and types of games) you can't find on consoles. And when they do make it to a console, my guess would be is that the game has been altered (sometimes a little, sometimes a lot) from the original PC version. There are many examples of this out there, just look around.

Plus, PC users can get many of the console games at one point (Or even before console gamers). GTA, Halo, etc... even nintendo is trying to get in on the PC gaming scene. My point being, there is, and always will be, plenty of money in the PC gaming scene.

As far as multiplayer gaming goes, I'd guess over half of the PC games out there have online play. And there's no shortage of online gamers either. I'm sure consoles will get pretty far into the online scene, but I don't think they could ever trade blows with the PC. Lets face it, most people have a computer and the internet... And most of the people I know play games online. I can't think of many people I know that play games on xbox live.

Now the downside to PCs... Expense. Now computer hardware prices are far more than a console, but I believe if a person has a good system, they wont have to worry about upgrading anytime soon.

What people don't consider is the fact that everytime a new console comes out, they run out and buy it for whatever price tag they happen to have stuck on it, and those prices don't go down to fast. And looking at the direction that consoles are going in, you console gamers might just end up shelling out money for costly new hardware as well.

not to mention the fact that console games generally cost siginficantly more than pc games.

[asking-for-it]

not to mention the fact that console games generally cost siginficantly more than pc games.

Exactly, thank you for adding that point that I managed to totaly skip. :cool:

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Someday--I'm not entirely sure when--these PC gaming doomsday prophets will <i>eventually</i> tire of constantly being wrong. With every console generation there's always the crowd that predicts the death of PC gaming, but within a year the PCs are already many steps ahead of those consoles (that are forced to stay stagnant for at least 3 or 4 years). Then a new console generation is released, rinse and repeat.

The doomsayers will at some point acknowledge that there will always be a market for people who are willing to spend time and money on a PC to get the best hardware and best games, that there are people unwilling to compromise with an almost-as-good console that comes with the typical console library of shallow action games, platformers, sports, and a dozen Mario knockoffs, all designed for the console gamers' 5-minute attention span.

Turn-based and real-time strategy, in-depth RPGs (when consolers think KotoR is an in-depth RPG, you know there's an audience gap), and squad-based tactical games will always have an audience, and you can't find these on the consoles.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

But maybe I'm giving humanity too much credit. There are people who still think communism is a good idea, there are people who cheer for the Cubs, and I'm sure there will always be people who will think PC gaming will just fade away. Being wrong over and over and over and over again doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.

When a set-top box is so powerful as to render photo-realistic graphics among other multi-tasking capabilities, what are you going to need a personal computer for that can be upgraded and can change operating systems? Who needs a PC when you've already got one in a console?

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Exactly, thank you for adding that point that I managed to totaly skip. :cool:

Consoles games can be had cheap, too. Especially on Xbox you can get games for 40 or less. Plus you can rent those bad boys.

[no.1gamer]

PC's are NOT more expensive than consoles. You must factor in the price of your big screen TV, receiver and surround sound system. You can argue that the TV and audio setup is a separate expense than the gaming console. But you can also argue that the PC's expense can be separated into gaming and whatever else you do with it.

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm spending more and more time staring at a computer screen instead of staring at a TV screen. With the internet and the PC becoming a common household object, I would predict that PC gaming will continue to thrive. Perhaps some people (and some media sources) are just distorting the truth.

[Asking For It]

PC's are NOT more expensive than consoles. You must factor in the price of your big screen TV, receiver and surround sound system. You can argue that the TV and audio setup is a separate expense than the gaming console. But you can also argue that the PC's expense can be separated into gaming and whatever else you do with it.

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm spending more and more time staring at a computer screen instead of staring at a TV screen. With the internet and the PC becoming a common household object, I would predict that PC gaming will continue to thrive. Perhaps some people (and some media sources) are just distorting the truth.

Wow, I never even thought about all the expenses that go along with consoles such as TV and etc... I guess that's because TVs are somethime most people just have before they go out and buy a console.

Still, I'd much rather go play games on my PC than on my consoles, and so would many other people... I think that's what's going to keep PC gaming alive for the most part.

[Hieremias]

I''ll just chime in that if a "console" did all the things you wanted to do with your PC(high resolution and whatnot) and played games, then what the hell would you need a PC for? The PC market will get slowly swallowed whole like the pit thingy in "Return of the Jedi". Upgrades won't be necessary or even desirable. PC gaming as we know it will go the way of the dodo bird, bell bottoms, and Michael Jackson's career.
This is true. Right now I wish I had an all-in-one machine that let me play the best games at hi-res, watch movies (both downloaded and DVDs), download and play music, surf the web over broadband, send email, output to my TV and/or my hi-res computer monitor (whichever I choose), edit images and video, and program in ASP, Java, HTML, and the dozen other languages I use now and then.

Oh wait, damn, I *do* have one of those. It's my PC. And it doesn't suffer from stagnating hardware. Hey the PS2 just turned 4 years old the other day (at least in Japan). Happy birthday PS2! Four years ago I was using a 450MHz machine with a 16mb video card.

Granted, upgrading gives me such a headache. Those big numbers and names... man I need some aspirin.

[sw33tjimmy]

blech. I stare at a computer monitor all day long. When I get home, I don't feel much like continuing that trend. I'd rather kick back on my couch for a bit, push a button, and play games.

I think one of the major bonuses to console gaming online is the lack of cheaters. There will always be the dork out there that screws around on a level until he finds an exploit, but at least xbox live gamers can't go online, to download an EXE that lets them shoot through walls or move faster than you can see.

[Spastic Colon Powell]

That is exactly the way I feel too. The last thing I want to do is fire up the PC. I don't even have a BB connection at home right now because I'm on a machine all day. And after a hard day's work, there's nothing better than to fire up the home theater, kick back on the couch, crack a beer, and get down to some gaming.

As for the demise of PC gaming, show me a study or prediction or trend that shows PC gaming is going the way of the dodo, and I'll show you a study that shows that pillows, hydrogen, and the show Friends all cause testicular cancer in Orangutans that come from broken homes.....

Point being, for those reading that aren't familiar with sarcasm, that there are always studies, and market analysis and trends that can be interpreted in many ways...not to mention the data is never static nor entirely predictable.

[Thrower, WCG-Fanboy Flame]

Some of you are talking about the depth of PC games compared to the console games. I think that advantage is about to be lost(if you even agree that's and advantage). As it stands now every single major franchise on the PC is coming to the consoles from the sims to doom 3, Morrowind or Half-life/counter-strike.

Then you have highly anticipated PC games that are becoming more consolified(is that a word?). Dues ex, Thief(in 3rd person on the xbox)?. Also the games are now being co-developed like Doom3 and Deuse Ex and Morrowind. With so much hype going to the console version that you really can't consider these games strictly PC games anymore. How can you say that Deus ex is more of a PC game than an Xbox game? What were Max Payne series sells on the PC compared to the consoles?

The biggest differences between consoles and PC's is ease of use and technology. I don't think it's fair to say that the PC is more advanced because every PC isn't. It's not like you can tell joe gamer to go buy a PC and he automaticially is going to have a superior machine than the Xbox(PS2,or GC for that matter). With a console you know the performance you are going to get. Hell the PC gaming scene is now just really getting to the point where every game out fully uses all/most of the technologies that were incorperated with Nvidia's Geforce 3, how long did that take? I still haven't upgraged. At the launch of the Xbox I got Halo and DOA3.

But like the person said above there will always going to be a market for the "bleeding edgers" but it wont be dominate I think it will morph in to a testing ground for what can and will be done next on the consoles?

[Hieremias]

blech. I stare at a computer monitor all day long. When I get home, I don't feel much like continuing that trend. I'd rather kick back on my couch for a bit, push a button, and play games.

I think one of the major bonuses to console gaming online is the lack of cheaters. There will always be the dork out there that screws around on a level until he finds an exploit, but at least xbox live gamers can't go online, to download an EXE that lets them shoot through walls or move faster than you can see.
I can't for the life of me see a difference between sitting in front of a TV or sitting in front of a computer monitor, except that the latter has higher resolution. Anyway, to each his own. Me, I like to sit back in my big padded office chair, put my feet up on the desk, and play video games on my PC. It's not uncomfortable in the slightest.

[Renzatic Gear]

Doom 3 isn't being co-developed for both the PC and Xbox. Id is handling the computer version and intends to make a game well suited to the advantages of that platform, and Vicarious Visions is handling the Xbox version, doing tweaks and consolifing it.

Two different productions going on simultaneously. That's the way it should be done, Deus Ex 2 proved that it just doesn't work to do both at the same time and expect the game to turn out well.

[Hieremias]

Some of you are talking about the depth of PC games compared to the console games. I think that advantage is about to be lost(if you even agree that's and advantage). As it stands now every single major franchise on the PC is coming to the consoles from the sims to doom 3, Morrowind or Half-life/counter-strike.

Then you have highly anticipated PC games that are becoming more consolified(is that a word?). Dues ex, Thief(in 3rd person on the xbox)?. Also the games are now being co-developed like Doom3 and Deuse Ex and Morrowind. With so much hype going to the console version that you really can't consider these games strictly PC games anymore. How can you say that Deus ex is more of a PC game than an Xbox game? What were Max Payne series sells on the PC compared to the consoles?

The biggest differences between consoles and PC's is ease of use and technology. I don't think it's fair to say that the PC is more advanced because every PC isn't. It's not like you can tell joe gamer to go buy a PC and he automaticially is going to have a superior machine than the Xbox(PS2,or GC for that matter). With a console you know the performance you are going to get. Hell the PC gaming scene is now just really getting to the point where every game out fully uses all/most of the technologies that were incorperated with Nvidia's Geforce 3, how long did that take? I still haven't upgraged. At the launch of the Xbox I got Halo and DOA3.

But like the person said above there will always going to be a market for the "bleeding edgers" but it wont be dominate I think it will morph in to a testing ground for what can and will be done next on the consoles?
Every single major franchise? What if we don't like the major franchises? I know consoles live and die by their Mario / Zelda / Halo / GTA licenses, but PC gaming right now has some amazing titles by smaller developers and publishers, many of them European. Chrome, Gothic 2, Far Cry, Silent Storm, Sacred, Beyond Divinity, STALKER. With the exception of a modified version of Far Cry (the developers have been VERY blunt in saying the Xbox will NOT be getting the same game), none of those appear on the consoles.

Where are the console games that are even remotely similar to STALKER, Silent Storm, or Beyond Divinity (to pick one game from each genre)? These genres aren't found on consoles anywhere. Strategy games and real RPGs are almost completely unrepresented on ANY of the console platforms. (The games that ARE considered RPGs on the consoles show you very clearly what kind of audience they're aimed at.) And don't even bother thinking about games like Heroes of Might & Magic or Civilization.

Doom 3 is an action game. It's dirt simple. Yes, it will have amazing graphics but it does not have depth in its gameplay. Neither did Max Payne. And the latest Deus Ex game was grossly dumbed down from its predecessor. Thief 3 isn't filling me with optimism either. These are not even close to being good examples of "the depth of PC gaming" moving to the consoles. I appreciate a good mindless action game like Max Payne just like I appreciate a good mindless action movie--but I do like variety now and then. And consoles have NOTHING BUT mindless, linear, repetitive action or sports games. I can't think of a single reason to trade in such a vast library of genres for the shallow platformers and Mario clones on the consoles.

Regarding the hardware, I think it's funny you guys take pride in the fact that your black box (or blue or purple, whatever) stays the same for 4 or 5 years. And you consider that a strength. Geez. This is the fundamental reason why console hardware will always lag behind PCs; it stagnates. And with each generation the PC hardware will get further and further ahead, because the market will drive it in that direction. The console companies only need to innovate once every five years--in fact it's against their interests to do so any faster because the machine wouldn't have time to make money. Have fun with your 4 year-old machine, I was using a 450Mhz computer back then. Now my PC is more than 5 times faster. Cheers!

[Renzatic Gear]

http://users.chartertn.net/greymatt/gates.gif
Our Moderator

After all is said and done, this man kicks the living hell out of both consoles and the PC.

[sw33tjimmy]

I can't for the life of me see a difference between sitting in front of a TV or sitting in front of a computer monitor, except that the latter has higher resolution. Anyway, to each his own. Me, I like to sit back in my big padded office chair, put my feet up on the desk, and play video games on my PC. It's not uncomfortable in the slightest.

sit behind a computer monitor for 8 hours every day and you'll realize the difference after 4 years. It doesn't have anything to do with the watching images on a screen, it has to do with 'I'm frickin sick of computers' period. I deal with viruses, Internet, networks, routers, computers, patches, updates, and a host of other things on a daily basis and the last thing I want to do at the end of the day is fuss with anything related to my PC. Every once in a while, I'll jump back on it, but I'm just burnt all together. As long as there are fun Xbox games to play, I don't need to fire up the PC to get my gaming fix.

[Thrower, WCG-Fanboy Flame]

Every single major franchise? What if we don't like the major franchises? I know consoles live and die by their Mario / Zelda / Halo / GTA licenses, but PC gaming right now has some amazing titles by smaller developers and publishers, many of them European. Chrome, Gothic 2, Far Cry, Silent Storm, Sacred, Beyond Divinity, STALKER. With the exception of a modified version of Far Cry (the developers have been VERY blunt in saying the Xbox will NOT be getting the same game), none of those appear on the consoles.

Where are the console games that are even remotely similar to STALKER, Silent Storm, or Beyond Divinity (to pick one game from each genre)? These genres aren't found on consoles anywhere. Strategy games and real RPGs are almost completely unrepresented on ANY of the console platforms. (The games that ARE considered RPGs on the consoles show you very clearly what kind of audience they're aimed at.) And don't even bother thinking about games like Heroes of Might & Magic or Civilization.

Doom 3 is an action game. It's dirt simple. Yes, it will have amazing graphics but it does not have depth in its gameplay. Neither did Max Payne. And the latest Deus Ex game was grossly dumbed down from its predecessor. Thief 3 isn't filling me with optimism either. These are not even close to being good examples of "the depth of PC gaming" moving to the consoles. I appreciate a good mindless action game like Max Payne just like I appreciate a good mindless action movie--but I do like variety now and then. And consoles have NOTHING BUT mindless, linear, repetitive action or sports games. I can't think of a single reason to trade in such a vast library of genres for the shallow platformers and Mario clones on the consoles.

Regarding the hardware, I think it's funny you guys take pride in the fact that your black box (or blue or purple, whatever) stays the same for 4 or 5 years. And you consider that a strength. Geez. This is the fundamental reason why console hardware will always lag behind PCs; it stagnates. And with each generation the PC hardware will get further and further ahead, because the market will drive it in that direction. The console companies only need to innovate once every five years--in fact it's against their interests to do so any faster because the machine wouldn't have time to make money. Have fun with your 4 year-old machine, I was using a 450Mhz computer back then. Now my PC is more than 5 times faster. Cheers!

You really didn't argue the point of my post. The major franchises and the big name games are what drive the industry. Niche games aren't going to support the market. And all of the major PC franchises and the biggest games on the PC are comming to the consoles. It doesn't matter if the PC has better tech the PC is scalable so you can't judge it.

What we are talking about is the death of PC gaming and while I doubt it's going to actually die I do think that it's going to become niche and more or less just a place where publishers are going to try out what's new and see what they can do for the consoles.

For some reason you and a lot of PC gamers seem to think bigger is better and more depth equals better gameplay. Personally I think a lot of PC games get mired in the details (details that don't improve gameplay). Do you even play games to have fun, are you better gamer than me because I don't want to have to read a damn 300 page manual to really understand a game? I like arcade racers, twich shooters, beat em ups and action games sports, and the occasional action rpg. I prefer the ammo system in Invisible War to all the micromanaging of ammo in the original Dues ex. It's all a matter of taste.

As for variety I don't see how you can sit there and say that PC gaming has it and allude that it's not on the consoles. You have publishers from all over the world that make games for the consoles how is Japan represented on the PC front. How many games that are on the PC that are really artistic. PC games seem to fall into two basic categories the High end games that need all the new tech to enjoy at there best or super deep simulations that aren't fun to play. (see how I just sterotyped the whole PC gaming library)

The fact is this, in any buisness if you aren't expanding or growing you are falling behind. Sure the numbers of PC gamers may not be decreasing but with the steady growth of gaming on consoles publishers are going to go with the money. Developers will also.

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

Stagnate flat or negative growth, compared to booming growth for the consoles. Now, that doesn't mean death or dead. As long as there are PCs, there will be games to play on them. But the bottomline is PC sales have flatlined in the US, not every home in the US has a PC, but damn near. And the ratio of people who have a PC to people who game on PCs is small. Consoles have never reached close to saturation in the US, but they will become almost as ubiquitous as the DVD player and Television, and the PC. The only difference, when people buy a console, they will be buying it to play games. So the consoles are already doing damn near $6 billion, compared to PCs damn near $2 billion. If this study is correct in a few years, the consoles will reach $12 billion, PCs could remain at $2 or decrease or slightly increase. Now $12 billion to let's say $3 billion, is not death, but it is domination. Not only that, the study predicts gaming consoles will take over from PCs and dominate online gaming. Yes, online. XBOX LIVE is just the precursor, and maybe the model for the industry as Nintendo and Sony may to their dismay, have to build out a network infrastructure.

So, there will still be room for the PCs to operate. $2 - 3 billion dollars is a market big enough for a lot of companies to strive, and that is just in the US. But in a few years, I don't think we will have to hear any of these PC versus console debates. And I don't think PC games will be the state of the art by then. By then the average console will be more powerful than the average PC - before you go crazy, remember I said average. I don't think anyone will have a PC with the power of 6 powerpc chips, I know I won't. Couple that with the fact, developers can squeeze more performance out equal hardware on a console, because consoles are closed architectures, then that means console games could quickly and permanently take over as the most powerful gaming platforms.

So you see, consoles are slaved to a 5 year life span, or maybe less. However, the PC gaming industry is slaved to the average homeusers system. When the average console power, becomes greater than the average home PC users machine, console gaming will then be state of the art, with more advanced and technical games that what the PC industry can do. I think that will happen with the next round of consoles. Most people with PCs ain't thinkin about upgrading to these new chips and videocards, as long as they can chat and surf the net and pay their bills, they don't care. I upgraded my PCs this year to a P4 with the purchase of a laptop, and i built a system around a 2.7G Athlon, before that I was using a system I built in 1998 that had an AMD K6 processor. I probably won't upgade again for another 5 or 6 years or longer. And I think I upgrade faster by far than the average US household.

Remember they make games based around the average recommended system, not the most powerful PC available. Right now the average system to upper systems are more powerful than consoles. But the next round of consoles are going to go way beyond these, and jump past the average home PC.

[Renzatic Gear]

Remember they make games based around the average recommended system, not the most powerful PC available. Right now the average system to upper systems are more powerful than consoles. But the next round of consoles are going to go way beyond these, and jump past the average home PC.
What's so different about that? The consoles have always leapfrogged the PC's every generation, but the PC's always catch up and eventually surpass the competition. This generation of consoles was a bit different cuz the leap wasn't as great as it was with the SNES/Genesis era or the Playstation/N64.

The consoles won't ever replace the PC's cuz...truth be told...they're really entirely seperate platforms. We can argue the games, but PCers look for different things when it comes right down to it. Like take Half-Life, it's a game that's come and gone on the PS2, but it's still alive and kicking on the comp front cuz of the countless mods available for it. That might not matter to you, but it matters to a few million people that enjoy playing em. Same goes for UT2k3, Quake III, and countless other games. I don't see any console developer releasing an SDK for their system, they're not set up to work with em, but the PC's are and as such that's where they'll stay. Because of this I doubt Id or Epic or GSC will ever abandon the PC front cuz they're primarily fancommunity based companies.

Also, you seem to be thinking that multiple processors means that a console will automatically have more power. That's not the case, what it means is that it'll be more efficient in doing certain things. To put it in perspective for you, a computer equipped with 4 PIII's won't be as fast as a single PIV system and it'll end up being the same when the Xbox 2 comes out. It might have those 6 G5's in it, but by then the comp scene will have a much faster processor under its hood (on average) and thus will be able to do more per clockcycle which in turn allows it to handle the workload of 3 slower CPU's. In the end the Saturn's 3 CPU's didn't help it beat the Playstation's single CPU in raw floating point power which is what matters when it comes to any 3D game.

So when all is said and done the PC's will eventually have the technological advantage over any console. What the consoles do with finesse the PC eventually beats by using pure brute force.

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

What's so different about that? The consoles have always leapfrogged the PC's every generation, but the PC's always catch up and eventually surpass the competition. This generation of consoles was a bit different cuz the leap wasn't as great as it was with the SNES/Genesis era or the Playstation/N64.

The consoles won't ever replace the PC's cuz...truth be told...they're really entirely seperate platforms. We can argue the games, but PCers look for different things when it comes right down to it. Like take Half-Life, it's a game that's come and gone on the PS2, but it's still alive and kicking on the comp front cuz of the countless mods available for it. That might not matter to you, but it matters to a few million people that enjoy playing em. Same goes for UT2k3, Quake III, and countless other games. I don't see any console developer releasing an SDK for their system, they're not set up to work with em, but the PC's are and as such that's where they'll stay. Because of this I doubt Id or Epic or GSC will ever abandon the PC front cuz they're primarily fancommunity based companies.

Also, you seem to be thinking that multiple processors means that a console will automatically have more power. That's not the case, what it means is that it'll be more efficient in doing certain things. To put it in perspective for you, a computer equipped with 4 PIII's won't be as fast as a single PIV system and it'll end up being the same when the Xbox 2 comes out. It might have those 6 G5's in it, but by then the comp scene will have a much faster processor under its hood (on average) and thus will be able to do more per clockcycle which in turn allows it to handle the workload of 3 slower CPU's. In the end the Saturn's 3 CPU's didn't help it beat the Playstation's single CPU in raw floating point power which is what matters when it comes to any 3D game.

So when all is said and done the PC's will eventually have the technological advantage over any console. What the consoles do with finesse the PC eventually beats by using pure brute force.

Yeah the PC game industry is not going anywhere, if you had read my post, I said that. As far as how much performance the consoles will produce compared to the average pc, remember, I never said the most powerful PC, we will have to wait and see when that time comes. I believe the processing power of the next consoles, will be far ahead of what the typical household will have in their PCs when that time comes. And I believe if that is the case, PC games will be behind consoles technologically, and I don't think this time the PC will leap frog back ahead of consoles. The main reason is not technology, of course the technology will always be there to build a faster PC, but I believe the PC software industry will be shackled to what PCs people have in their homes, not to the most powerful one's availabe. Just my predictions, we will see what happens. As far as your Half-life, which yeah I've played and loved, it was my favorite game until Halo came out. I think they will end up on the consoles. Who cares about how bad HL did on PS2, I really don't even consider PS2 next generation, I mean, it is barely next generation. But that's a whole different argument that has been done, too many times far as i'm concerned. So we will see in the end what happens with PC gaming.

[Renzatic Gear]

When you say "average household PC" you seem to be talking about someones grandma that uses her computer to check email and get recipes off the internet. You're disregarding the fact that the average avid PC gamer will have at least a midline computer at any given time..these are the people that have and always will buy the games, not the average household.

You also have to consider that hardware components are plummeting in price every day, the next gen Radeons for instance will be roughly twice as fast as the 9800 XT but only cost in the $200 range. Not only that, but what is cutting edge, super expensive techology right now will be your affordable midline computer 6 months down the road. My 9800Pro was $400 just 4 months ago, but I picked up an OEM card for just $260 only a little while back.

As of right now the Geforce 3, which is about the same as the one in the Xbox, is considered the entry level card at the moment.....entry level being a card that does the bare minumum required to run a game at 640x480 with all effects on. Within 2-3 years I'm sure the FX and 9800 series will be in the exact same position. Computer technology flies by at a screaming pace at times and most of the games (not all, I'll admit) are usually about a year behind the latest and greatest...and it doesn't seem to be slowing down.

I doubt the next gen systems will put a dent in the trend.

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

I understand exactly what you are saying, and I understand better than most the increasing performance vs decreasing costs of hardware components, heck I remember back in 1997 when I bought my first 3D FX card, that thing was an add-on card and expensive as heck. I just bought(past winter) an ATI card for what a sound card use to cost. I'm not against the PC gaming industry, like I said, as long as there are PCs there will be games to play. I just think this time, it is going to be different. I just don't see a lot of demand like there use to be in the PC industry. Even the fabled names of old, don't generate near the interest they use to. Shelf space is reducing and PC software is getting marked down so fast they need to use erasable ink on the labels. I think there will always be room for the big PC game. But the effort that use to go into creating every PC game, the consistency, I just don't see it across the board. And I think it is all diminished demand.

For example, I use to play flight sims. There were so many flight sims, all meaty games, with tons of replay. So many companies, Falcon, Strike Commander, Jane's had a million different sims, Nova Logic, and every year they came out with new products, and the industry was on nerve just waiting. And that anticipation was the same for every genre on the PC, what is Blizzard doing? When's the next westwood game coming, i can't wait for Age of Empires2, what is better Shogo vs Quake2, etc etc etc. You use to walk into Babbages and right there on the left and right in the front of the store, all PC games. Walk into Best Buy, they'd have three rows of PC games. Go up and down the highway, and you'd see four or five small PC shops. Now, that is all gone. At EB you got PC games stuck all the way in the back, with half a rack worth of games. I went to EB to get Chessmaster a while ago, they didn't even have Chessmaster, how can EB not have Chessmaster? Just the amount of shelf space reserved for PC games now, compared to PC games in the mid 90's is dramatically reduced in retail america. Not only that, but also for accessories. And all the buzz has shifted, everything that was once PC is becoming consoles. I just the demand is not there, sure yes, the technology is there, no one will ever question the ability to go get the latest parts and be the most powerful. But I don't know if the demand will be there 5 years from now. I don't know if the growth in the console arena, will tempt big PC developers to switch over to grab a piece of that growing pie, especially if demand slides further. Already a lot of fabled PC developers are gone, hasta la vista, nice to know you. Now the PC is gettin in the bed with the consoles, people think EA is bad for XBOX, hell it is even worse for the PC. As the EAs, the Ubisofts, the codemasters, now the Ids, the valves, all get into bed with consoles, then all those special games, unique projects, will go by the wayside. Anyway, again, we will see who is right and who is wrong. I understand your point. Remember though, it was demand that brought us into the 3D gaming age, it was gamers demand that drove the PC industry. Now, gamers don't seem to be driving the PC industry any more. And there is gonna be more fall out for gaming hardware & software companies, I believe.

[Renzatic Gear]

Really? Around here PC games still have equal shelf space with PS2 and Xbox games...that's weird.

Anyway, we can argue back and forth but really only time will tell...I think that, at worst, PC gaming will become what it was back when the NES was still new. Very niche, but still very much alive. We'll see...