Console / PC future gaming and media

[Ferral]

Ah, but look at Nintendo with the N64 and expansion pack. It was great if you had it but could still run the games regardless of wether you had it or not. So being able to pull something out of a console and put something new in could work.

Not forgetting if that route was taken due to parts being mass produced it would still work out cheaper in the long run than upgrading a PC every six months just to be able to play the latest games at reasonable resolution and framerate.

[CaseyV9]

Ah, but look at Nintendo with the N64 and expansion pack. It was great if you had it but could still run the games regardless of wether you had it or not. So being able to pull something out of a console and put something new in could work.

Not forgetting if that route was taken due to parts being mass produced it would still work out cheaper in the long run than upgrading a PC every six months just to be able to play the latest games at reasonable resolution and framerate.

I think with Consoles becoming more and more like PC's there is going to a be a fine line between them.
I think that line is that a PC is fully customizeable and console's hardware is set in stone.

I don't think that puts consoles at a disadvantage as developers have found ways to get more out of it and find how to push it harder. And consoles can still run games as good as most PC's.

As soon as you make the hardware: The graphics card - Memory - CPU upgradable, then the console will not be a console, but a PC. And then you'll find that you won't be getting the high performance from the hardware you do now as developers will be concentrating their efforts on making the games look prettier on the newer hardware.

Still, I think it would be good if you they added a few PCI slots so you could add other devices and also other drives. Then consoles would become a proper media device.

Bugger, KALNIEL already said that. Er,..... As KALNIEL already said.

[kalniel]

Ah, but look at Nintendo with the N64 and expansion pack. It was great if you had it but could still run the games regardless of wether you had it or not. So being able to pull something out of a console and put something new in could work.

Yes, but that won't happen with graphics chips.

The only way I could see it working would be if you had specific '1080' '720' and 'SD' consoles - each of which would contain the same kind of graphics card but at different speeds. Then you'd have to pair up the capability of your graphics card to your TV. That would be transparent to the developers who would just have to hit the standard 30fps at a target resolution and have the rest of the scaling be handled by the graphics hardware. It wouldn't really be worth it though because the amount of standardisation you'd have to do on the chips would make it very expensive for relatively little gain (you'd never be able to add a new feature or increase performance too much).

[directhex]

let's break down some of the gross misconceptions that always appear in threads like this.

first, the "games are cheaper" argument. launch-day xbox 360 titles retail for about £30-£40. launch-day PC games retail for about £15-£35. so about ten quid difference per game, on average. how long does that take to "stack up"?

well, let's look at an xbox 360 as costing £280 at launch for the top-end machine, with a lifespan of about 5-6 years before being superceded (i.e. you can play HD games on high detail for 6 years, for the £280 initial purchase price). the machine was released in late 2005, where a high-end PC would include a 7800gtx and Athlon 64 4000+. i think a reasonable cost estimate on a mid-high-end enthusiast gaming pc would be... hm... can we agree on £700? i think that's a fair number.

so. given the price difference, so far, we need to buy 42 games over 6 years for the pc to be cheaper. easy, right? well, perhaps not - because the above spec won't be doing high res high detail games in 2010. trust me. it would fall very short indeed of the minimum spec for games like assassin's creed (recommended spec core2, 8800-series gpu, 3 gig of ram). 6 years, i think it's fair to say it'll get upgraded, maybe twice, to ensure decent visuals? that makes... well, let's say a new gpu and new cpu twice, costing about £300 (and that's a generous number, should cover something like an 8800gt and a core2). so the 6-year cost of the pc goes from £700 to £1300.

now, all of a sudden, you need to buy 102 games in 6 years for a PC to be a cheaper option. do you buy 17 full-price games a year? budget games don't count, since the 360 is full of 2-for-£25 deals and the like.

obviously i've simplified other details - i've excluded the cost of other peripherals from both sides, for simplicity. i'm ignoring the "i can use a pc for porn surfing but not a 360" argument which has validity, but not in a purely gaming-centric situation.

and as Ferral points out, many of the distinctions between consoles & PC as a host for games are changing. consoles have embraced online multiplayer, offering in many cases a better environment (integrated matchmaking, voice chat, etc, in all games). consoles are now good media machines, playing back a variety of formats like divx. the ps3 has a web browser and will run a full OS if you're that way inclined.

some formats are inherently better suited to some styles of play than others (with those who argue that you can add a joypad to a pc missing the point that you can add a keyboard to a console, but the games are designed not to need it). and in many cases, being the prettiest girl at the ball isn't all about MOAR MHZ anyway (with ps2 games like okami beating out the most slick photorealistic pc title). even PC bastions like casual play are being eaten away by systems like the wii, psn, and xbox live arcade.

is pc gaming "dying"? just as much as it has been for decades. for the hardened i-will-not-touch-consoles fanatic, seeing companies like id or crytek drop the platform as their preferred system (due largely to the economic realities of modern game design), then it must hurt.

but in the end, what matters is one thing and one thing only: which big box is needed to play this week's kickass game? that's the box you should own at that moment in time.

[CaseyV9]

Actually, I take the PCI bit back, since most things can de done via USB.

With XBox 360 you have USB ports. It's a shame they don't sort it out so you could connect PC peripherals to it.

I hear PS3 can run Lynx. Does this mean that when using Lynx you could use most computer peripherals? I've heard you can use a mouse and keyboard.

If so, the line between PC could already have crossed. That would make a console very much cheaper.

Anyone ever known of anyone getting XP running on XBox 360?

[directhex]

I hear PS3 can run Lynx. Does this mean that when using Lynx you could use most computer peripherals? I've heard you can use a mouse and keyboard.

lynx?

the text-mode web browser?

it can, tangentially...

If so, the line between PC could already have crossed. That would make a console very much cheaper.

indeed.

Anyone ever known of anyone getting XP running on XBox 360?

just give me a copy of windows-xp-for-powerpc-processor and i'll get to work

[Hicks12]

although very true about the upgrading part with games, to me i havent upgraded since like 2000 and only just upgraded, so it really didnt matter for me as a pc cost me £600 this time and will last me for a good while hopefully.
I buy alot of my games for £20 or less, witcher etc all great games so it does work out better for people in different situations, i enjoy a pc more than a console as i love to mess around with it >

[grayg1]

because the above spec won't be doing high res high detail games in 2010.

No but the PC will still be doing Xbox 360 level details and the 360 like I said before is never doing real high res anyway.
For the pleasure of playing your games on non dedicated servers you will be charged £35 a year in the Xbox 360 case ( seeing as this is what you are mentioning in your example).
(6 years x £35) + Xbox 360 £280 = £490

On the PC I'll get that free along with DEDICATED SERVERS.

The cheaper games chink away at the cost of being on the PC platform but I pay my slight premium overall for having superior versions of games.

think it's fair to say it'll get upgraded, maybe twice, to ensure decent visuals? that makes... well, let's say a new gpu and new cpu twice, costing about £300 (and that's a generous number, should cover something like an 8800gt and a core2). so the 6-year cost of the pc goes from £700 to £1300.

No, I would upgrade once in that 6 year period. Your talking about basically buying a new PC for about £700 at the beginning of the console cycle. I would upgrade my CPU and GPU after 3 years pretty much like you said there, but I wouldn't be upgrading again within the 6 year cycle you're talking about. At the end of the 6 year cycle upgrading wouldn't count for that console generation as then the money would be going to compare with the new generation. Which would bring my total down to about £1000 and not £1300. Also I would probably be more likely to spend about £600 on the PC in the beginning, but for the benefit of the argument we'll just keep it at your £700 figure.

[MadduckUK]

just give me a copy of windows-xp-for-powerpc-processor and i'll get to work

reactOS... from the future i guess

[s_kinton]

I bought a PS3 last December after not owning a console for since a NES, this was a big step for me. I've played nothing but PC games in the that period, because I couldnt imgaine playing fps games on anyhting but a mouse and keyboard.

I eventually bought COD4 on the PS3 and spent a few days getting used to aiming with the pad. After using the PS3 over the last 6 months its now totally taken over from my PC. I use my PC for downloads, internet and music, thats it. I cant remember the last time I played a game on it which is a shame given its spec.

My ever decreasing lack of time to play games means that the PS3 is ideal for a simple, easy plug and play gaming. I dont need to install things, search for patches and fix any incompatibilities. I never have to play around with the settings to get a smooth frame rate at my preferred resolution either. Constantly wasting money buying and selling components has gone, the only upgrade to my PS3 was a new HDD. I used to love tinkering around but now I just want the ease of a console. Sure the games are more expensive, but I think for me PC gaming is largely a thing of the past.

[CaseyV9]

Text Lynx?

And there is me thinking Lynx as in Eee notebook
I knew it sounded too good to be true.

But, if you could run XP and Vista on XBox 360 or PS3, would that make anyone part with their PC's?

It's like my NOKIA phone. It discribes itself in the manual as a computer. I can send E-mails, go online and install apps such as Abode PDF reader.

I think you can see where these consoles are going if you look from where they came from. The latest bunch seem to be taking a more serious stabb at being like a media PC.

I reckon that Consoles will go in the same direction as mobile phones.
I think, for me it's only going to leave one question when they reach that point.

As much as it's always nice to add a new PC of hardware to my PC, when It comes to the point where once again, I'll need to remove a perfectly capable bit of hardware from my PC just for the next gen of games I'll think:

Why bother with this when a one of payment for a console can do the same job?