Gaming Is Console Gaming Dying?

I see the gaming market splitting into casual gaming dominated by the console or whatever "onliveesque" thing they evolve into and the hardcore gaming market dominated by the high end pc.

The success of the Wii has shown where the strengths of the console business model lie and the fact that the loses made on the more advanced hardware of the PS3 and xbox360 have been difficult to recoupe leading to a longer console life cycle than expected.

The thing that attracted many pc gamers to the 360 and ps3 at release was the possiblity of really quite powerful hardware at a low cost at the time of their release....but as the console lifecycle drags on further than expected they look less and less attractive....put that together with the fact that future consoles will probably not be comparativley so powerful and expected to have a longer life cycle then they will be alot less attractive and hardcore gamers will drift back to the PC.

just look at the advantages the pc already has over the consoles...DX11 together with all opencl oportunities that provides, multi screen and 3d support and much much more and there is still 2 years left of this console life cycle.

The only problem I see is that the money is in the mass market of the more casual gamers and so attracts investment away from the more niche high end pc user.
Lets just hope with the drift back to the pc that will occur that the developers find better ways to distribute and protect their products so as to tap this market better.

 

I'll believe it when I see it!

 

Actually I may have it wrong and it may have been Gaikai that stated the browser based stuff.

And you would be more correct if you labelled this tech a 'terminal' as all the crunching happens the other end of your phone line. The only thing limiting the tech is caps and speeds, once that hurdle has been jumped ... who knows.

 

We'll see.

 

"Debating trolls who answer legit points with aggressive "move to a better country where X doesn't suck" is pointless and useless. Ignore the d**khead."

I think you miss the point,

It is not necessary for everyone to have a decent connection, nor is it necessary for every country to be included, nor is it necessary for everyone to want the product..... it is certainly not teh case you should move country just to have access to this service... there are more important things in life... you just wont have access to it.

If there is one major city in the world with good enough connections today then Onlive has a market in that city, if there are 2 then they have double - in fact there are whole countries with the requisite connections... today... next year there will be more and so forth.

lets look at the benefits.

They dont need to pay for the infrastructure - broadband exists
They dont need to pay for the software - it is already programmed
They dont need to pay for the games developers - they already serve the pc market.
They dont need to buy a computer for every customer - just enough for peak - say 25%

Personaly I dont know why everyone just doesn't share their computer and internet connection. If your in a block of flats just drill some holes.

 

Yeah! DIE DIE DIE!



Oh wait. WII can stay, It is fun to watch people wreck there LCD screens when playing that!.

 

lol, rare moment for me.

You got me think about what my mum said recently. A couple of family members where getting 360's for christmas so she was looking at picking up games as presents. She came across offers for consoles and while she thought £199 for a 360, 4games (reguardless of game offered) and an extra controller was a decent offer, she cringes at the fact a ps3 is "so expensive". While you can do so much with consoles these days, some people still only see them for what they are, machines to play games on. I still think shes surprised you can play DVD's on a ps2

As stated, the infrastructure isn't up to supporting it. Even most other countries will struggle to support it. Even if they can now, as online gaming and video streaming takes off, the increased burden on exsisting resources. Eventually someone will have to pay for the upgrade.

Optimisation will always occur as will bugs. Code will continuly have to evolve to get such a project to run efficently. Even transmission of data is optimised via software solutions as its cheaper and less hassle than upgrading cables making your investment last longer.

Yes they do, but look at the trend. Developer serve where theyll get the most money. Look at left4dead not supported on the PS3 due to "difficulty" learning coding for new archeticture. It will come to a point where development will be halted on one platform as its just not wort the extra cost.

stop pulling random figures. Even if 50% can use it, who will if their best friend can't? I donno about you but I like to game with my friends be it on a sofa beside them or online in the comfort of my bedroom. Again its not practical for the company either. If your gonna break into the market then you need to do it global or at least within a region. Who wants to play COD with 600 people from your city if other solutions are offering the whole world?

Stop being an idiot. you do contribute to the discussion in your own way but blow it by posting something like this.


Surely with processors with 100 cores planned and the increasing power of GPU's having 100's of player on one server isn't impossible at least in the future. The biggest problem I see is the inital breakthrough and again pricing structure. A data center like that would need its own power plant or two lol

 

short answer: no

Long answer...no.


Its become bigger than the music industry last I heard and with sales for games like modern warfare hitting the millions over a weekend...I seriously dont think so.

If anything I would say unfortunately PC gaming is taking the hit.

I use to love pc gaming over console but made the switch mainly because of all the issues surrounding it and lack of support at times. I wanted to put a game in and play it - not fear the fact that some unknown error is going to pop up during installation or bootup despite having the specs to play it....then scouring the internet for possible fixed and bypasses to get it working...

I preffered PC gaming over the console originally...I felt i had more control in the games....however it was too big a pain in the ass.

When it worked how it was meant to...it was fantastic....better in almost every way.

When it didnt work...it was an absolute nightmere.

Also having to sit at my desk to play was a pain...its so much more comfortable in bed, nice and warm with your wireless joypad under the blanket as your head pops out playing the game....

PC gaming is going to become more of a niche I fear ...

 

Well I have been a fan of PC gaming rigs for a long time. I love COD Modern Warfare 2. Recently I recieved a PS3 as a gift as soon as I pulled it out of the box I opened COD Modern Warfare 2 for the ps3. What I can tell you is the game lasted 5 minutes, just enough time to realize that for this type of game a keyboard and mouse rule so I now play this game on PC. I then thought what will I do with my PS3? On my pc I run windows 7 with media sharing turned on, wondering through the menus on my ps3 I found an option to find media servers, the PS3 found my pc which has a lot of TV programs and Films. When I looked in the videos folder on the PS3 I found all the tv programs and films that are on my pc. I watched a few films and tv programs and realised that the PS3 is not just a games console it is a media server that sits in the living room quiet as a mouse. On the other hand if I had my gaming pc in the living room my nice films would have the background noise of a jet taking off. Anyway the conclusion of my rant is that I think that the PC and ps3 complement each other. You get a great gaming rig and a great media server that comes with blu ray drive all mixed together.

 

Are these recent games you had problems with?

At the time, you may have had the suitable PC specs to play your games, but I feel that there must have been one or two aspects about your particular hardware or software environment that were 'broken'.

If I did not have my own personal experience of gaming across many generations of different PCs and having every single game install successfully and play first time, then I may be likely to say that there were problems with your games.

I have played PC (and console) games that contained 'bugs', but never a game that did not install and play.

For you to have one game not working 'straight out of the box' is one thing, but any more than one game and I would have made a serious investigation into the actual PC hardware and software setup.

 

Network sharing is a perfectly valid option with only a drill and a cable... there is no downside provided you trust the person you're sharing the connection with.

you could equaly do it with wifi. (jsut share the password with the neighbour)

Sharing a computer is a natural next step on, virtualization makes it eminantly possible. even if you dont want that route time share a gaming rig and save some cash.

 

Definite agree. I was slightly over-optimistic in thinking that a first-gen Vaio would play CoH and CS:S. CoH gets max 10fps at lowest possible settings, CS:S won't even launch On the plus side this does encourage me to play diablo 2

 

Personally, I don't think consoles or PCs will necessarily die out in as fast as one generation; it'll probably a slower crawl. It'll also be one that will be hidden behind the advance of newer technologies and platforms. Something I read at Cracked.com struck a chord - notably, they pointed out that it's not really about hardware or delivery systems but usability and universality. They noted that cell phones and portable devices are getting faster, better, and well.. more portable. They suggested the idea that consoles and PCs will transition to be less static devices and more towards small compact devices you can carry with you and play where and when you need while still also having the capability of sit down and play on a big screen.

 

But this just symbolizes one of many weaknesses of PC gaming in general, and why people turn to consoles in droves. The console games work! There are no special conditions or requirements...required! DRM could stop a game from working on a PC depending on the software or hardware you have installed. Also the number of installs, as some games only allow you to install them 3-5 times! After that, the game won't work! Then of course there are the bugs, patches ect.

 

Hmmm... That sounds like laptops and OnLive!

 

People turn to consoles for simplicity, granted. Personally I see the computer as more than just a gaming device. For me it is occasional tv, occasional photoshop, a fair amount of internet and mostly gaming.

If you are looking for simplicity in a computer it's quite easy to find. Buy a 'gaming' Dell. It will play the latest games at about medium-high settings. Then use Steam, or better still, understand how to click 'Next' when using an install cd You pay more for Steam games, but there is ease of use, no objectionable DRM and unlimited installs.


If you can get past the not insurmountable difficulties associated with PC gaming what does it give you?

Patches You list patches as a negative of pc gaming. When they're to fix bugs that arose because of shoddy QA, fair enough. When developers fix exploits, balance weapons etc I think this is a good thing. Tbh I think consoles do this too now.

Mods. Frankly there's little that can be said about the general awesomeness of a PC game community that hasn't already been demonstrated.

Flexibility. Name one RTS on the console that hasn't had to compromise or isn't an unplayable POS. You can attach wheels to your pc for driving games, joysticks for flying and mechwarrior, use it for Skype, general internet, stream video, edit photos, write a CV etc etc etc

Market-based supply. On the whole, PC hardware is a market where the consumer has choice. Your xbox hardware comes from M$ or licensed sellers who can charge whatever they like. Your games are more expensive despite being more technically limited.


Finally consider this. You pay £300 for a console and a few games, plus another £300 for a netbook. If you only ever paid for one console at the beginning, money well spent and congratulations - no one ever expected this generation to last so long But at an average of £10 more expensive per game, and assuming you've had about 20 games, that takes your total to £800. Factor in new controllers, maybe a new hard drive and it's pushing £900.

A really, really top spec computer now can be had for £1000 as bit-tech have shown. Plus games and that's about £1200. We don't want that, we want something comparable with the console. So a £750 computer + £200 games = £950 = (your console + everything else a PC offers).

 

My hardware was great during the time. Duel core conroe cpu 2.67ghz, 4gig of ram, 2gig of which I won here from bit-tech from the memory survey (thanks bit-tech! <3) as well as a good Asus mobo bit-tech here rated and the whole shebang.

I bought Gears of war for the pc to my peril. That game was great on the pc but would not work over stupid things.
Theres a prime example of a game that didnt work "out the box" as it had to be bypassed through some work-around I can no longer recall.
Also installation for it took an hour...no im not exeggerating - literally an hour and you can check the Epic forums to confirm this if you dont believe me.

This was not the only time as other games would sometimes crash to desktop etc and its not like I was the only one as others would have complained of similar issues in the forums.

However you have highlighted more so the problem I found with "PC gaming" which was the bugs - You have a console which is universal and easy to cater for however a PC can have a sheer number of issues because anything a person has installed or doesnt have installed can conflict with the software.

As for these bugs.....I would pose the question exactly how is a gaming experience more enjoyable on a PC if you buy a game for it, spend X amount of time(hours) installing it, attempt to play it yet face bugs or issues that need the developer to release a patch and then face ingame issues with it, bugs, glitches, cheats and hacks at times.

Dont get me wrong, I loved my pc during its day and thought it was far better....but as I get older I feel my patience isnt what it once was...or perhaps I simply dont have as much time to invest in getting a game to work first time.

No my hardware was fine, whether you accept that I leave to you but my whole point is the gaming experience on the PC isnt as straight forward....at times it can be more rewarding through mods and custimisations but then you can argue that with console gaming;

It just works, game cd in the drive, fire away, no installation times, no crashes, stable online play usually, no cheats, no hacks, pick up and play.

 

I think this is key in why PC gaming won't die too soon. PCs are used for so many things that they will fundamentally be part of our everyday lives. This means that they'll always be around, and even as technology and hardware advances it will be where encoders will learn their trade. To remove gaming from the PC will ultimately be the day when consoles take over peoples need to use PC's for such tasks. At that point they themselves will be PC's or as similar to PC's as Macs are.

 

RTS games are not a key reason the PC will survive or fail. Looking at the UK top 10 chart on this site, ask one question, where are all the RTS games? These same games have been on this chart for a looong time now!! Thats like saying FPS games are better on a PC, then having it's console counterart utterly destroy it in terms of sales!! People prefer to play the games on a console! PC gamers are buying console FPS games!! PC gamers for some reason just don't understand why people buy consoles, and what they use their PCs for. They buy consoles to game first and foremost. It's a game machine. A PC cannot and does not out game a console...it just doesn't, it can't! people totally understand what a PC can do, they just prefer to do it elsewhere. Everything a PC can do, is done better somewhere else. Want to watch TV, what is better, watching it on a computer screen or a television...EXACTLY!! Is the PC even equipped to watch TV? In most cases no! Want to watch a DVD or Blu-Ray movie, what is better, watching it on a small computer screen, or a television...EXACTLY! Is the PC even equipped to watch a Blu-Ray movie? In most cases no, but if you have a PS3 you can at no extra cost and with your family!!! HEY EVERYBODY, LET'S CROWD AROUND MY PC SCREEN!!! Want to listen to music., what is better, listening to it on an MP3 player, cell phone, or in your car and taking it with you, or listening to it in front of your PC? EXACTLY!!! People want to GET AWAY from their desks, they DO NOT want ot be tied to them. A PC just can't magically do these things either, it has to be equipped to do them and that costs money, money people don't want to spend. The VAST majority of People use their PCs to surf the net, shop and chat...thats it!

WHERE ARE THEY?!! Sitting at #7 and #8 ain't saying a whole lot.

01 Football Manager 2010 (No change)
02 The Sims 3 (Last Week: 3)
03 Modern Warfare 2 (Last Week: 2)
04 The Sims 3: World Adventures (No Change)
05 Left 4 Dead 2 (Last week: 6)
06 Dragon Age: Origins (Last week: 5)
07 Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War 2 (Last week: 13)
08 Empire: Total War (Last week: 7)
09 Borderlands (No Change)
10 World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King (No Change)

 

If a dev went out on a limb and released a game on PS3 and Xbox with mouse and keyboard compatibility I'm sure PC's would have a problem holding on to RTS and MMO. Maybe even we the die-hard FPS PC lovers may feel a need to switch allegiances!