Consoles vs PCs --- stating the very obvious... but from an interesting source.....

[John Lewis]

From an Asssociate Press Technology article published today:-

Chris Donahue, group manager of Microsoft's Games for Windows unit,
admits that DX10 is an example of the PC surpassing the consoles. The
company's own Xbox 360, for example, uses a custom version of the
older DX9 standard that can't be upgraded.

"Consoles are a snapshot of where the PC is at the time they were
made," he said. "The consoles are a step that stays flat for five
years. The PC is basically a 45 degree angle."
============================================


I like the 45 degree angle analogy.............

Consoles..flat for 5 years......... unless, of course you decided to
buy a Xbox360 two years ago, then sell it on Ebay and buy a Xbox360
Elite, then sell it a year or so from now on Ebay and buy a Xbox720
(with a new Dx10-compatible GPU and integrated HD or BluRay drive).
And as for upgrade accessories instead of unit-swaps.......Add a
HD-DVD drive for $200, Swap out a wimpy 20Gbyte drive for a
slightly-less-wimpy $175 120Gbyte drive. Swap the HD-DVD drive for a
Blu-ray drive... $200. Nickel and dimed to death..held ransom to a
particular console family by the software purchases. At least
hopefully the hardware evolution in a particular console-family will
preserve software backward-compatibility....

Gets kinda expensive... comparable with upgrading PC graphics-cards
and CPUs, but without the wide range of functionality and
price-choices available to the PC upgrade purchaser... with Dx10
hardware now ranging from $99.99 to $599, and with comprehensive
video decoding silicon even on the least expensive graphics-cards.

John Lewis

 

[FKS]

Consoles..flat for 5 years......... unless, of course you decided to
buy a Xbox360 two years ago, then sell it on Ebay and buy a Xbox360
Elite, then sell it a year or so from now on Ebay and buy a Xbox720
(with a new Dx10-compatible GPU and integrated HD or BluRay drive).
And as for upgrade accessories instead of unit-swaps.......Add a
HD-DVD drive for $200, Swap out a wimpy 20Gbyte drive for a
slightly-less-wimpy $175 120Gbyte drive. Swap the HD-DVD drive for a
Blu-ray drive... $200. Nickel and dimed to death..held ransom to a
particular console family by the software purchases. At least
hopefully the hardware evolution in a particular console-family will
preserve software backward-compatibility....
Gets kinda expensive... comparable with upgrading PC graphics-cards
and CPUs, but without the wide range of functionality and
price-choices available to the PC upgrade purchaser... with Dx10
hardware now ranging from $99.99 to $599, and with comprehensive
video decoding silicon even on the least expensive graphics-cards.

I don't think the PC is better than consoles in terms of the cost. One, to
get the graphic quality of Xbox 360 games, you need a powerful, expensive
PC. Two, most console owners don't spend $$$ on upgrading their console.
Once you buy a $399 Xbox system, you are pretty much all set and you know
that all future 360 games will run well on your 360.

Having said that, I still prefer the PC for gaming and do not own a console
because I like to tweak and mod games. However, more & more game developers
do not bother to develop games for the PC any more. PC games do not sell
well. You are lucky if you can sell 10,000 copies, whereas it is not
uncommon for a console game to sell more than 500,000 copies.

 

[johns]

Why don't they take the obvious next step, and make the
console games pc-compatible ?

johns

 

[Dusty Steenbock]

From an Asssociate Press Technology article published today:-

Chris Donahue, group manager of Microsoft's Games for Windows unit,
admits that DX10 is an example of the PC surpassing the consoles. The
company's own Xbox 360, for example, uses a custom version of the
older DX9 standard that can't be upgraded.

"Consoles are a snapshot of where the PC is at the time they were
made," he said. "The consoles are a step that stays flat for five
years. The PC is basically a 45 degree angle."
============================================


I like the 45 degree angle analogy.............

Consoles..flat for 5 years......... unless, of course you decided to
buy a Xbox360 two years ago, then sell it on Ebay and buy a Xbox360
Elite, then sell it a year or so from now on Ebay and buy a Xbox720
(with a new Dx10-compatible GPU and integrated HD or BluRay drive).
And as for upgrade accessories instead of unit-swaps.......Add a
HD-DVD drive for $200, Swap out a wimpy 20Gbyte drive for a
slightly-less-wimpy $175 120Gbyte drive. Swap the HD-DVD drive for a
Blu-ray drive... $200. Nickel and dimed to death..held ransom to a
particular console family by the software purchases. At least
hopefully the hardware evolution in a particular console-family will
preserve software backward-compatibility....

Gets kinda expensive... comparable with upgrading PC graphics-cards
and CPUs, but without the wide range of functionality and
price-choices available to the PC upgrade purchaser... with Dx10
hardware now ranging from $99.99 to $599, and with comprehensive
video decoding silicon even on the least expensive graphics-cards.

John Lewis

Consoles are cheaper and more easily accesible. Parents can have thier PC
and buy thier kiddo a console and don't have the cost of buying two pc's.
It's unfortunate In the fact that PC games do suffer. That being said the
subject of this topic Is no surprise. In my opinion pc games have ALWAYS
been ahead of consoles for many reasons.

 

[jwb]

"Consoles are a snapshot of where the PC is at the time they were
made," he said.
*snip*

Gets kinda expensive... comparable with upgrading PC graphics-cards
and CPUs, but without the wide range of functionality and
price-choices available to the PC upgrade purchaser... with Dx10
hardware now ranging from $99.99 to $599, and with comprehensive
video decoding silicon even on the least expensive graphics-cards.

This whole argument is meaningless unless you feel you *must* have the most
power.

The PC's constant need to upgrade is part of the reason you see interest in
PC games waning. I don't know about you, but I feel the majority of PC
gamers would be perfectly fine with that same "5 year snapshot" if the games
were fun and worked well. Who *cares* about the latest and greatest DX10
bloom pixel shaders in realtime or whatnot... I'd MUCH rather see some more
fun games at "Far Cry" or HL2-level graphics. No need to go bigger.

I've played PC games for twenty years. I also own an x-box 360 and a Wii,
and, quite frankly, currently find myself spending MUCH more time with the
two consoles than the PC (in terms of gaming.)

 

[FKS]

Why don't they take the obvious next step, and make the
console games pc-compatible ?

johns

When programming a game for a console, you know exactly the hardware & OS
you are dealing with. When programming a game for a PC, you have to deal
with thousands of different PC configurations. It's too much hassle.

I was never interested in consoles and don't own one, but I am seriously
thinking about buying an xbox 360 because some really good games are not
available on the PC (gears of war, call of duty 3, etc).

I've been playing PC games since 1990, but if I were a game developer in
2007, I would not even consider the PC platform.

 

[Walter Mitty]

When programming a game for a console, you know exactly the hardware & OS
you are dealing with. When programming a game for a PC, you have to deal
with thousands of different PC configurations. It's too much hassle.

No you dont.

Its called programming to an API.

Sure, there might be some glitches, but less & less likely with
something like XP.

I was never interested in consoles and don't own one, but I am seriously
thinking about buying an xbox 360 because some really good games are not
available on the PC (gears of war, call of duty 3, etc).

I've been playing PC games since 1990, but if I were a game developer in
2007, I would not even consider the PC platform.

Because you had the incorrect impressions that you have to code for the
myriad of potential variations of the theme?

 

[jwb]

I was never interested in consoles and don't own one, but I am seriously
thinking about buying an xbox 360 because some really good games are not
available on the PC (gears of war, call of duty 3, etc).

I've been playing PC games for a long time, but I have to say, I love my
360, and don't regret buying it for a second.

 

[johns]

I would have no problem in making my PC console compatible
if the games were compatible on both. Frankly I think the
consoles could be used as a benchmark requirement for
my gaming PC, and the coders would only have to meet
that standard. They could protect the console market by
making the console standard fairly high ... and the PC
market for game PCs would have to meet a minimum
standard too. I don't see a big problem with that.

johns

 

[joey]

This whole argument is meaningless unless you feel you *must* have the most
power.

The PC's constant need to upgrade is part of the reason you see interest in
PC games waning. I don't know about you, but I feel the majority of PC
gamers would be perfectly fine with that same "5 year snapshot" if the games
were fun and worked well. Who *cares* about the latest and greatest DX10
bloom pixel shaders in realtime or whatnot... I'd MUCH rather see some more
fun games at "Far Cry" or HL2-level graphics. No need to go bigger.

I've played PC games for twenty years. I also own an x-box 360 and a Wii,
and, quite frankly, currently find myself spending MUCH more time with the
two consoles than the PC (in terms of gaming.)

I've played games a long time too (over 25 yrs now). And I agree with
you in that I'd rather see fun games at HL2 graphics than to have
great eye candy and miss out on gameplay, there is still MUCH more
available on the PC in terms of sheer fun than there is on all the
consoles combined if you have a reasonably fast PC, the games are
cheaper, they load faster, can be played with a mouse/keyboard giving
you much better control (and much more realistic aiming in shooter
games), and you can use your PC to do a gazillion other things that
exercise your brain more than gaming.

Consoles are for small kids, people who can't afford real PCs, and
the brain-dead.

 

[Michael W. Ryder]

I've played games a long time too (over 25 yrs now). And I agree with
you in that I'd rather see fun games at HL2 graphics than to have
great eye candy and miss out on gameplay, there is still MUCH more
available on the PC in terms of sheer fun than there is on all the
consoles combined if you have a reasonably fast PC, the games are
cheaper, they load faster, can be played with a mouse/keyboard giving
you much better control (and much more realistic aiming in shooter
games), and you can use your PC to do a gazillion other things that
exercise your brain more than gaming.

Consoles are for small kids, people who can't afford real PCs, and
the brain-dead.

Or for people who don't want to spend several hundred dollars every time
a new game comes out. I remember the need for massive upgrades
necessary to play Morrowind and Far Cry when they came out. The cost of
the upgrade along with the effort sometimes necessary to make everything
work can be a real killer.
Another point that has not been mentioned is that most PCs can not be
used for multi-player games without using another PC and network. The
added cost and complexity, not to mention the added room, etc. also work
against PCs.

 

[jwb]

I've played games a long time too (over 25 yrs now). And I agree with
you in that I'd rather see fun games at HL2 graphics than to have
great eye candy and miss out on gameplay, there is still MUCH more
available on the PC in terms of sheer fun than there is on all the
consoles combined if you have a reasonably fast PC,

I completely disagree with this statement. Unless you're solely into
strategy games or MMO's or something, the PC does not have "much" more than
consoles.

I'd be more apt to agree with you two years ago.

the games are

cheaper, they load faster, can be played with a mouse/keyboard giving
you much better control (and much more realistic aiming in shooter
games), and you can use your PC to do a gazillion other things that
exercise your brain more than gaming.

You don't need to choose one "over" the other. I use my PC for work, web
surfing, and some gaming. I use my consoles for gaming. I'm a gamer - I like
fun games, no matter the platform.

Consoles are for small kids, people who can't afford real PCs, and
the brain-dead.

why do you feel the need to belittle anyone? I mean, really, THAT'S your
argument?

 

[FKS]

Because you had the incorrect impressions that you have to code for the
myriad of potential variations of the theme?

You misunderstood me. I'm not sure why one interprets "Dealing with
thousands of different PC configurations" as "coding for 1,000s variations
of a theme."

That's not an issue here, though. As I said in my earlier post, PC games do
not sell. Why invest in something that doesn't sell? When was the last time
a PC game sold more than 100,000 copies?

 

[Dusty Steenbock]

You misunderstood me. I'm not sure why one interprets "Dealing with
thousands of different PC configurations" as "coding for 1,000s variations
of a theme."

That's not an issue here, though. As I said in my earlier post, PC games
do not sell. Why invest in something that doesn't sell? When was the last
time a PC game sold more than 100,000 copies?

Are you serious? Many mmo's have broken 100.000 copies easily, the latest
being WoW.

 

[HockeyTownUSA]

When programming a game for a console, you know exactly the hardware & OS
you are dealing with. When programming a game for a PC, you have to deal
with thousands of different PC configurations. It's too much hassle.

I never quite could get a handle on that argument. I thought that's what the
DirectX API was for. Hardware vendors and software developers write to the
same code libraries. If hardware or software doesn't adhere to the rules,
then shame on them.

I was never interested in consoles and don't own one, but I am seriously
thinking about buying an xbox 360 because some really good games are not
available on the PC (gears of war, call of duty 3, etc).

I bought an Xbox 360 for that very reason. I spend probably 90% of my gaming
time on the PC, but certain games are a must-have. Plus it's great when you
have company for multiplayer games, especially the simpler XBOX Live Arcade
games.

 

[HockeyTownUSA]

Or for people who don't want to spend several hundred dollars every time a
new game comes out. I remember the need for massive upgrades necessary to
play Morrowind and Far Cry when they came out. The cost of the upgrade
along with the effort sometimes necessary to make everything work can be a
real killer.
Another point that has not been mentioned is that most PCs can not be used
for multi-player games without using another PC and network. The added
cost and complexity, not to mention the added room, etc. also work against
PCs.

Called "Internet Gaming"...

Plus most newly released games you can play on a mid to low range PC,
granted not at maximum detail, but I can rarely do that anyways and usually
keep near the top of the PC technology curve.

 

[joey]

Or for people who don't want to spend several hundred dollars every time
a new game comes out.

I don't think many PC gamers do that. I would say the *average* PC
gamer (not the high-end or low-end gamer) spends probably $1000 every
18 months on his hobby, and in most cases the equipment he buys works
double duty at other things. When I upgraded to my current high end
PC from a not-too-shabby mid range (by todays gaming standards) PC, I
was amazed at the overall productivity boost even with every day tasks
like web surfing. I read a lot on the web and I tend to do things
quickly. I can get through information much faster on this PC, I can
feel the difference it even in typical web page browsing.

I remember the need for massive upgrades
necessary to play Morrowind and Far Cry when they came out. The cost of
the upgrade along with the effort sometimes necessary to make everything
work can be a real killer.

Nobody says you have to play games when they first come out. After a
PC game has been out for a month or so you can usually buy it off
GoGamer for $30 or so, while the Xbox 360 equivilent remains $60. That
savings alone can pay for the hardware if you buy enough games.

As another thread pointed out, the technological limits of a console
remain relatively flat for 5 years. The best and brightest game
developers and innovators do not want to be held back by obsolete
processing power, they want to develop on the fastest available, which
means the PC platform draws the best talent.

Another point that has not been mentioned is that most PCs can not be
used for multi-player games without using another PC and network.

That's true for the most part, but most PC's are connected to the Net
anyway (as is yours -- because you're posting here).

The
added cost and complexity, not to mention the added room, etc. also work
against PCs.

What do you mean by added room? Do you not already have a PC sitting
in your house? Even if its a laptop, they DO make game-worthy laptops
these days.

 

[Michael W. Ryder]

I don't think many PC gamers do that. I would say the *average* PC
gamer (not the high-end or low-end gamer) spends probably $1000 every
18 months on his hobby, and in most cases the equipment he buys works
double duty at other things. When I upgraded to my current high end
PC from a not-too-shabby mid range (by todays gaming standards) PC, I
was amazed at the overall productivity boost even with every day tasks
like web surfing. I read a lot on the web and I tend to do things
quickly. I can get through information much faster on this PC, I can
feel the difference it even in typical web page browsing.


Nobody says you have to play games when they first come out. After a
PC game has been out for a month or so you can usually buy it off
GoGamer for $30 or so, while the Xbox 360 equivilent remains $60. That
savings alone can pay for the hardware if you buy enough games.

With Morrowind I ended up spending $400 for a 9700 Pro (when they were
first released) to get the video everyone was talking about. I later
found I need to spend another $200 for more RAM (from 512 MB) to get the
game to quit crashing. That's a lot of games being bought at a discount
to justify the upgrades.

As another thread pointed out, the technological limits of a console
remain relatively flat for 5 years. The best and brightest game
developers and innovators do not want to be held back by obsolete
processing power, they want to develop on the fastest available, which
means the PC platform draws the best talent.

Except now some of the PC games are being brought out for the console
market at the same time and they "cripple" the game so that it will work
the same on both platforms. Just look at Oblivion for an example.

That's true for the most part, but most PC's are connected to the Net
anyway (as is yours -- because you're posting here).

Actually, my gaming PC is not attached to the web. I have so far
resisted the siren's call of on-line gaming. Too much time.

What do you mean by added room? Do you not already have a PC sitting
in your house? Even if its a laptop, they DO make game-worthy laptops
these days.

My point was that if you had a friend or two over and wanted to play
game X together you would need two PCs networked together to do this.
With most consoles you just attach a second controller. No need for
another box and monitor. And I doubt you will find a "good" PC going
for under $150, nor will it be the size of a book.
I am not saying that I am a console fanatic, but I can see why a lot of
people use them. They just work without a lot of effort. No having to
worry about setting up virus protection, spyware detection, firewalls,
etc. just to protect the machine.

 

[John Lewis]

You misunderstood me. I'm not sure why one interprets "Dealing with
thousands of different PC configurations" as "coding for 1,000s variations
of a theme."

That's not an issue here, though. As I said in my earlier post, PC games do
not sell. Why invest in something that doesn't sell? When was the last time
a PC game sold more than 100,000 copies?

Er, Oblivion sprang to mind instantly, followed by World of Warcraft
in the next instant (8 million at last count ) . Exactly what are you
smoking today ?

John Lewis

 

[John Lewis]

Or for people who don't want to spend several hundred dollars every time
a new game comes out. I remember the need for massive upgrades
necessary to play Morrowind and Far Cry when they came out.

Wrong. Not <necessary>. Both games had full scalability in their
option settings. And were perfectly playable at the lower settings.
Those who upgraded did it by CHOICE.

The cost of
the upgrade along with the effort sometimes necessary to make everything
work can be a real killer.
Another point that has not been mentioned is that most PCs can not be
used for multi-player games without using another PC and network.

Huh ? Why not, if the games are written for split-screen and multiple
controllers ( or groups of keyboard keys) The appeal of split-screen
is very limited. Doesn't even work very well for Xbox play.. OK for
the usual 5 minute sessions of superficial bang-bang play of
Halo/Halo2, I suppose..

John Lewis