Will Consoles finally past PC games?

[mckmas8808]

You know historiclly people have always seen PC games being so far potentially further than consoles that many people never gave any honest look into this question. Yet now I think that next-gen could be the generation that will put consoles ahead of PC gaming overall. And I'm including graphics, physics, F.P.S, RTS's, MMO's, any kind of online game, etc. Even Ken Kutargi stated that Sony has never had a CPU that could was comparable to what PC had in main use. Yet now they do.

Unlike the past consoles are now getting damn near the latest and greatest GPU technology the avaiable. Consoles are becoming more and more like PC in a way if you ask me. Alot of the things that PC's had it seems like the next-gen systems will support and more. And with PC gaming losing market share it is looking quite good for the console makers.

I mean hell MS will have unified shader tech even before the PC world will receive it. ATI themselves even admit that the consoles are getting something that the PC world isn't going to get for a long time. And rumor has it that Sony will allow keyboard and mouse gameplay on the PS3 which could kind of kill one huge thing that the PC has always had an advantage over the console with.

I wanted to have some good thinkers discuss more. Some guys like Acert, Laa-Yosh, London, Shifty, DeanoC, etc. And given the consoles multi-threaded architeture maybe that could give the consoles an edge that the PC will take a while to get to.

I understand that the GPU within themselves will be surpassed in the consoles but the overall potential that the X360 and PS3 have in them is amazing. And it seems to me that alot of PC devs could come to the console market and make some real money and do some real great things if they wanted too. I know one key genre that the PC owned was the FPS, but now it seems that may be taken away from them.

I can only imagine what Halo 3 will look and play like and conbine that with COD2, GR:AW which both are supposed to look better on the X360 and also add the unnamed game that could look like it's video and I think the consoles could own the PC world. And I haven't even went into how the PC world domonated the online sense.

But due to MS that is will not hold true anymore. Sony is looking to do next-gen what MS did this generation as far as online gaming is concerned and to me that pretty good and MS is expanding what they have already did. And now MMO games are coming out for next-gen systems that's only another stab in the heart to the PC gaming area.

I guess the only thing that the PC world will clearly have over the consoles is the mod scene. But I believe that I heard that MS is looking towards that too (if I'm not mistaken so) so I don't even know about that either.

What do you guys think?

[Mefisutoferesu]

It'll never happen. Intel, AMD, NVidia, ATi, and MS would implode economically and the world would turn into the thunderdome!

Seriously, gaming is pretty much what feeds the GPU and CPU industry. Do you really need 3.6Ghz P4 XE for word? If the games dry up the need for more power dries up and NV and ATi would go into serious economic trouble. MS wouldn't want it either. What's the number one reason most people stick with MS, aside from ignorance? Gaming. Personally, I think that's part of the reason MS is creating some interoperability between Vista and 360. They want to secure and maintain PC gaming on Windows, 'cause when that goes Linux and OSX become a LOT more attractive. Besides, if developers started an Exodus there would be those would would join PC gaming thinking they got a perfect chance for money. Afterall, when you're the only game in town business is good. Essentially, it'll never happen because capitalism will keep PC gaming alive.

Nothing is of course impossible, so if it were to happen... if that's the case, the PC industry will do an extreme shift towards multimedia. High speed encoding and so on. I imagine GPUs would focus heavily on video acceleration. Lot's of support and development for various video codecs and stuff. I think miniturization and HTPCs will also drastically up in interest. I'm sure some other stuff. I wonder what kind of chaos would occur with this switch coupled with all the excessive DRM being built in to computers. A contrast of interest would be a brewin', eh?

EDIT:: Moved it to this thread, as you asked. Sorry, I didn't see the new thread earlier.
EDIT:: Thought of a little more to say.

[_leech_]

I think we're seeing the first real signs that consoles will slowly take over the PC in terms of graphical capabilities, reminiscent of how the power of home consoles started to negatively effect the arcade industry. It's becoming more and more clear that it could take possibly thousands of dollars in upgrades to keep up with consoles when consoles will have their own jumps in graphical quality through efficient software design and optimization. One look at the current state of PC gaming (visually) and what's been presented from the X360 and PS3 so far (especially with the TGS), it's clear that PC games already have a fair amount of catching-up to do. Even "high-end" PC demos - like the recent Crytek demo - show off things that aren't anywhere near taxing for next-generation consoles, yet will cost quite a bit of money for PC gamers to enjoy (DX10 videocards, Windows Vista).

In short, i think consoles are starting to show the problems with the PC platform itself (inefficient use of hardware, quick upgrade cycles, costs), problems that need some serious attention if PC gaming is to remain competative, even beyond graphically competative.

[AlphaWolf]

Consoles are much too constricted to compete in a number of areas.

[Phil]

From a technical point of view, I always felt the consoles have always been further on some levels, namely physics, particles and to some extend geometry. I guess that is due to the nature of graphicscards on PC that have greatly expanded on memory for textures and a lot of shaders. I guess PCs will always catch up at some point, even if through raw bruteforce - but IMO the architectural differences will always be there that will distinguish console games in their approach to the PC ones.

I think a great example would be the a comparasment of PS2 graphics to Xbox ones. Xbox is very PC orientated technology and as a result many of its game have a very PC-ish look to it (namely high variety on textures, bump mapping, high image-quality but also empty and artificial looking in many examples), while PS2 games have a much lower texture budget, some examples even showing off great graphics by adding a lot effects like rain, air or particles with a very distinct art-direction.

[doob]

...

Useless post, imo it should be closed.

&btw: Constant PC industry evolution in both hardware and software leads to an obvious and known logical answer that's NO!.

[Inane_Dork]

When the Xbox first came out, it was a toss-up (IMO) whether Xbox games looked better or PC games looked better. The PC had features the Xbox didn't, but Xbox games benefited from standard shaders which were exceedingly rare in PC games of the time. I think the PC won out, but it wasn't a slam dunk.

And now? I think consoles will pass PC games, but for no more than a year. Arguably, with SLI and Crossfire, PC games will always look better because you can spend 6x the money to get it there. Again, the standard nature of the consoles will increase the likelihood of more advanced effects that have not been worthwhile to add on PCs so far.

The rest of the topic, which is all about the exclusive features of PC gaming, is beyond me. Too much speculation for my blood.

[Lazy8s]

The new consoles won't be powerful enough to beat a high-end PC, which would use a dual set-up of the best video card, in graphics at their respective launches. The X360's graphics should compete with the best single PC card at its release, but the PS3's GPU will supposedly be a generation behind at its introduction.

Consoles have already outpaced the highest-end PC with dual graphics cards once before, with the Dreamcast in 1998.

[hey69]

but its not about the GPU alone..

the floating point capabilities are much more advanced on consoles then current and and coming pc cpu's.

i think you should look at it in a whole package.

[bRoNx]

Even if consoles do, it won't be for long. Like what Kutaragi said about another subject: "Beating us for a short moment is like accidentally winning a point from a Shihan (Karate master), and (insert console in reference) is still not a black belt".

[Lazy8s]

PC CPU performance will compete with consoles at intensive FLOPS work by having co-processors like physics cards.

[pegisys]

but its not about the GPU alone..

the floating point capabilities are much more advanced on consoles then current and and coming pc cpu's.

i think you should look at it in a whole package.

I don't think that will count for much, I think the ps2 cpu has a higher flops rating then the pc I'm using now

[london-boy]

PC CPU performance will compete with consoles at intensive FLOPS work by having co-processors like physics cards.

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! That You-Know-What!!! The.... P....... P............ U!!!!

*dies*

[Serenity Painted Death]

PS3 and X360 aren't anything that PCs won't eventually catch up and pass (fairly soon, too).

Though, I think the bar will steadily rise. Your average run of the mill PC today looks much much better than anything Xbox can put out. It should be interesting to see whether an equivalent quality PC in four or so years time can still so effortlessly blow it away, or will it only be very expensive high end PCs. I have a feeling the answer is more tilted towards the latter, and that this trend will grow with each passing console generation. Furthermore, at some point, the graphics will basically merge and there will be few noticeable differences to the un-trained eye, but we are not nearly there yet.

But overall, consoles passed PC long ago, and their lead is insurmountable. I'm speaking of course of sales and popularity, not necessarily quality (or graphics, really, I tend to prefere console gaming vastly over PC gaming, even with lower resolutions and inferior graphics).

[mckmas8808]

Like the Matrix says it's inevitable. Consoles are due to pass PC's in my mind. The question is this. Will it be with the PS3 and Xbox 360? Isn't one big advantage that the consoles have over the PC's is that it's a closed environment? The fact that the devs don't have to wonder what is in the end user's PC is huge. The developer doesn't have to say ,"Well will they have a 5500 blah or a 6500 blah? And do they have a blah blah PPU or a blah blah PPU? Will their PC be set up to utilize dual-core processing or just single core? See that's 3 difference scenarios right there that I can think of. Lets run that back again.

A. What GPU will they have? The $300 old edition (ie Nvidia 6800) or the $500 new edition (ie 7800)?

B. Will they have a PPU? If they do which version is it?

C. Will they be able to play dual-core designed games properly?

See these are key things that console developers will not have to ask. And everything today that can take advantage of the above in PCs, next-gen consoles will be able to do. And also take into consideration that devs have not totally figured out how to program multi-threaded games yet. After a year or two the PS3 and X360 should see a huge jump doing great things in physics, animation, and other little effects.

Again I think that it is inevitable.

[pegisys]

Like the Matrix says it's inevitable. Consoles are due to pass PC's in my mind. The question is this. Will it be with the PS3 and Xbox 360? Isn't one big advantage that the consoles have over the PC's is that it's a closed environment? The fact that the devs don't have to wonder what is in the end user's PC is huge. The developer doesn't have to say ,"Well will they have a 5500 blah or a 6500 blah? And do they have a blah blah PPU or a blah blah PPU? Will their PC be set up to utilize dual-core processing or just single core? See that's 3 difference scenarios right there that I can think of. Lets run that back again.

A. What GPU will they have? The $300 old edition (ie Nvidia 6800) or the $500 new edition (ie 7800)?

B. Will they have a PPU? If they do which version is it?

C. Will they be able to play dual-core designed games properly?

See these are key things that console developers will not have to ask. And everything today that can take advantage of the above in PCs, next-gen consoles will be able to do. And also take into consideration that devs have not totally figured out how to program multi-threaded games yet. After a year or two the PS3 and X360 should see a huge jump doing great things in physics, animation, and other little effects.

Again I think that it is inevitable.


that doesn't mater because in a year or two after launch it's going to be old tech, if someone want's to play with a new feature that only available on a new pc card(be it shader model 4, some new shadowing technique, DX10, or what ever) they are going to make a pc game.

you can't have bleeding edge on a console 2 years down the road because it's a closed box , and right now the only advantage the consoles have is speed, the feature set is basicly the same

[MoeStooge]

Again I think that it is inevitable.

Your whole point is that consoles will pass PCs because they are a closed architecture?

That hasn't helped them in the past and I certainly don't see it in the future.

The graphics chips powering both Nexgen consoles are developed by companies that have a large stake in the PC industry too. They may not sell as many chips for PCs compared to consoles, but they can sell them at a higher price. Plus, they can update their PC products many times within the lifetime of a console. The only thing that may happen in the future is that certain genres will disappear from the PC. Fighting games, sports games, and games that play better on consoles probably aren't worth developing for a PC. First person shooters, real-time strategy games, MMORPGs will be on PCs for a long time.

btw, "Dewey defeats Truman!"

[Shifty Geezer]

that doesn't mater because in a year or two after launch it's going to be old tech, if someone want's to play with a new feature that only available on a new pc card(be it shader model 4, some new shadowing technique, DX10, or what ever) they are going to make a pc game. The problem with open PC architectures is cutting edge doesn't get used much until it's mainstream, some few years after it's release. Unless you know all your audience is going to benefit from a feature, why waste time developing for it? Why right SM3.0 shaders if 90% of the gamers can't use SM3.0? Whereas the closed-box features from the consoles will be exploited fully.

There are new releases on the PC that still don't look as good as some PS2 games. Compare the same genre/style CON on PS2 to Dungeon Siege II on PC. The PC hardware might be more powerful but it's not used nearly so well.

In terms of pure peak performance tech specs a finite hardware can't compete with an evolving hardware that improves during the finite hardware's lifetime. But in terms of what actually gets onto the screen the finite hardware can give the PC a very good run for it's money :D And bang for buck PC's are left in the dust.

[Mefisutoferesu]

One issue is development. IIRCAIND, Nomura said in order to finish the FFVII tech demo SE aired, it would take something like 100 man team 5years. Now, granted PCs can always out spec a console given enough time, but after a point what will it add to graphics? There must be some point where the human eye has trouble distinguishing, which is more technically impressive and it becomes an issue of art. Then there's the question of economics. Refering back to Nomura's comment, after a point own't it be too expensive to make better and better graphics? When the budget is 30 million alone for art assets, I doubt it's viable. So, while PCs can always go beyond due to upgrade cycles, there'll be points when gaming as a medium itself won't beable to advance. Law of diminishing returns as it were. At this point, whose going to pay $4000 when there's a $400 console available?

[Atsim]

Again I think that it is inevitable.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. To think that a closed system could be more powerful than an upgradable system in the long run is being idiotic. This happens everytime new consoles are released but you gotta understand, they are making consoles with current tech. PCs in a year or two will be using more advanced tech. It's never going to happen, you're putting these consoles on too high of a pedestal. They aren't that powerful, and video cards now can pretty much match the graphics.

[_leech_]

To think that a closed system could be more powerful than an upgradable system in the long run is being idiotic.

I don't think it is. For one, you have to understand that a closed systems go through their own "upgrades" in the form of better tools, better understanding of the hardware, optimization, etc., a luxury that's simply not available on the PC. Think a 7800GTX will ever get used to it's fullest? Absolutly not, it'll get thrown away far before it ever gets used properly.

[Atsim]

Think a 7800GTX will ever get used to it's fullest? Absolutly not, it'll get thrown away far before it ever gets used properly.

But the only reason it's thrown away is because something newer and more powerful has come out, which would be able to perform the kind of stuff that the console developers figured out (whatever that is) and have the added bonus of being faster.

[MrSpiggott]

Will PCs, as we know them, even exist in the home to compete with consoles in a few years time?
How do you think the average PC gets used? Playing games, surfing the net, writing the odd email, a bit of on line shopping, editing photos, storing music, viewing porn......?
Now I love my PC, but I resent the huge monitor and speakers that are only used for a few hours a day, the cost of continually upgrading, the conversation destroying noise it makes that means I have to tuck it away in the corner of a spare room, wasting valuable space and destroying it's ability to be an 'always on' video phone or email receiver.
With the advent of HD TV, broadband, wireless keyboards and the increase in processing power all these activities become possible on a console. This may not happen soon, it may not happen until playstation4 or xbox720, but I think it's inevitable, and when it does it's going to take an awful lot of persuasion for me to stick with a PC when everything I want to do can be done with an unobtrusive little box that gets replaced every five years. Of couse PC manufacturers can counter with ultra small and silent form factors without expansion slots, but then isn't that really just another type of console.
At least I'll always have my PC at work.

[ims]

6 months after the launch of the consoles and a High end PC will overpower them. Bang for buck though, cant beat a console.

[Bobbler]

It seems to me this topic has two questions in it... one is easy to answer, and the other is a bit more difficult.

Firstly, will PC's overpower consoles soon after release?

Of course, consoles don't stand a chance at staying the most powerful thing out (it is arguable that they won't necessarily be by the time they get released anyways). The fact that every 6 months you can upgrade your comp a decent amount means that Consoles don't stay king for long -- it all comes down to cost though: Sony, MS, Nintendo could spend 2 grand and make a console that stays king for a couple years probably, but they can't feasibly do that -- they have to limit themselves to sub 500 dollar (cost to them) pretty much.

The harder question is... how will performance compare between a console and a high end pc over the years? (how the power gets actually used)

It seems to me that this generation will last a bit longer in power comparison (game looks and ability to do things) -- hell, even some Xbox games can give some PC games a run for their money and it is running on hardware that is severely outdated by PC standards. The ability to optimize and the headroom that the multicore processors and shader monster GPUs that are in these next gen consoles should offer far more longevity to the consoles this gen than last gen -- of course we're still limited to things like 512mb ram in them, so textures will have a cap, but other things won't necessarily (at least not directly). PC's will surpass consoles in power soon after release, but developers can't necessarily take advantage of them for ~3 years down the line -- consoles are a closed box where you can code to the metal, as it were. It seems to me that PS3/Xbox360 (maybe even Rev) will stay graphically comparable for ~3 years and then PCs will start showing consoles their place -- we might not see limitations on things outside of graphics though, like world size/complexityt, and physics, and things like that. Who knows though?

Regardless, this next gen should be interesting.

[Serenity Painted Death]

6 months after the launch of the consoles and a High end PC will overpower them. Bang for buck though, cant beat a console.

As we go along, the time between the debut of a console and the time that PCs overtake them will grow, along with the costs associated with that advantage in power. One must wonder how long such a paradigm can remain in existence.

PCs will always be upgradable beyond consoles, though I do believe we will reach a point where it is no long economically feasible for many businesses to behave or operate as they have been behaving thus far. This is the inevitability of consoles overtaking PCs... not because they will actually, in the ultimate sense, be more powerful.

[mckmas8808]

Your whole point is that consoles will pass PCs because they are a closed architecture?

That hasn't helped them in the past and I certainly don't see it in the future.




No. No. No. No. Noooo. That's not the only point. There are many points. read my post above with the A, B, and C options that PC devs will have to go through compared to a console dev.

This time around consoles are completly changing the way games are being programmed on a mainstream basis. To me this is one of the reasons why PC devs are complaining about it being too early for consoles. They would rather see the console side wait another 4 to 6 years until PC tech is ready to take full advantage of multi-threaded programming.

The thing is consoles will have it now and devs will learn how to program for them because they have to feed their kids. Their companies have to stay a float and letting another company learn it while you sit back will only result in the lazy company losing market share. See EA can't talk out loud and disagree with the direction that MS and Sony went with the multi-threaded games because another company like Ubisoft will be open arms ready to learn the new task.

I'm saying that as far as architecture is concerned the consoles are a bit ahead of PCs. And remember the PC gaming sector is starting to loss marketshare when compared to console games, so expect more PC devs to come on over to consoles. And whom ever has the best games will always determine the future. I mean PCs now need PPUs and dual-core processor just to keep up with next-gen consoles

[Dave Glue]

As we go along, the time between the debut of a console and the time that PCs overtake them will grow, along with the costs associated with that advantage in power. One must wonder how long such a paradigm can remain in existence.

PCs will always be upgradable beyond consoles, though I do believe we will reach a point where it is no long economically feasible for many businesses to behave or operate as they have been behaving thus far. This is the inevitability of consoles overtaking PCs... not because they will actually, in the ultimate sense, be more powerful.
You have to keep in mind however that a large part of the timing of this next-gen is Microsoft itself; the 360 is being rushed into the market (and in effect propelling its competitors) due to the mounting losses from MS quickly slapping together a modified PC to respond to the PS2.

Sony themselves have stated they want the PS3 to be a "10 year platform", and after being gouged with the Xbox1 I don't think MS will be in any hurry to release the next iteration of Xbox either;I see 6 years as the minimum timeframe for each of the next-gen consoles to be on the market before we even think of seeing the PS4/Xbox 720. With increased development costs and increased complexity of the consoles, each manufacturer is going to want to get as much software revenue out of that investment as possible. That's a significant timeframe for the PC platform to grow and mature, as it has to.

Secondly, MS has admitted they have been hurting PC gaming, and are supposedly readying a large marketing push to establish PC gaming once again in the retail space. I'll believe when I see it though, I predict it will the 360/360/360 for the next 365 days after Nov 22nd. :) Vista itself will help considerably though, as for the first time 3D graphics performance will affect the general user experience and not just 3D games, opening up another avenue of marketing for ATI/Nvidia.

[Serenity Painted Death]

PS1 was a "ten year" platform. I would bet anything that Sony doesn't expect PS3 to last, literally, for a decade with no new console. They will probably continue supporting manufacture it after they come out with PS4, much like they did with PS1 and will do with PS2.

Console gaming is far more popular than PC gaming right now, and it will only continue to get worse. The only thing really keeping it afloat is the keyboard/mouse and easy online accessibility without much, if any, hassle. Both those things will eventually fall to consoles. There is also, I would posit, a certain amount of nostalgia and a good crop of agining PC gaming enthusiasts who grew up on with PC gaming. More and more this too is being replaced by consoles.

Nobody sane is going to deny that you could build a better gaming PC than Console X, but again, it is seeming more and more inevitable that there will be no economic feasibility to such an action.

I would add that as graphics continue to advance, there will come a point where significant differences are only noticeable by people trained to see the difference. Pushing for PCs that outdo consoles at that point would be suicidal... there would be no market for it. The market is already shrinking as is. I'm not saying this is right around the corner, but it is going to happen unless there is a huge shift in the gaming business... a mass extinction if you will, of the dinosaurs so that the mammals can flourish.

[skilzygw]

I really think the PC's have a different style of games. And that is the reason they are a gaming platform. NOT because of graphics.

However with that said. The xbox broke the FPS barrier and became a great FPS machine.
Xbox 360 is getting ALL the great PC FPS. The only thing I'm waiting for next is RTS games like Age of Empires series to go console.
Once that happens Ill abandon pc games forever.

All the pc's would have left is MMORPG's. Which by the way are coming to consoles as well.

I think pc gaming will be diminished NOT because of graphics but because all the "PC STYLE" games are coming to consoles as well. This was never really the case.

What about this way of thinking?
Thanks.

[Shifty Geezer]

The only thing I'm waiting for next is RTS games like Age of Empires series to go console.
Once that happens Ill abandon pc games forever.

http://my.ign.com/my/sb?pageID=2003&nuaction=gameSearch&gameTitleSearch=age+of+empires

Goodbye PC ;)

[pegisys]

I think if all the big developers leave the pc the little guys will take over, because they could make a game without having to pay royalties or buy skd's, so all they would have to worry about is the cost of the game it self, and they could do online distrubution and not have to worry about publishers making all the money.

There is also more freedom to do what you want on the pc where on a console all games have to get approved by the consoles maker

[mckmas8808]

I really think the PC's have a different style of games. And that is the reason they are a gaming platform. NOT because of graphics.

However with that said. The xbox broke the FPS barrier and became a great FPS machine.
Xbox 360 is getting ALL the great PC FPS. The only thing I'm waiting for next is RTS games like Age of Empires series to go console.
Once that happens Ill abandon pc games forever.

All the pc's would have left is MMORPG's. Which by the way are coming to consoles as well.

I think pc gaming will be diminished NOT because of graphics but because all the "PC STYLE" games are coming to consoles as well. This was never really the case.

What about this way of thinking?
Thanks.

It is half the reason I even started this thread. On one side I was thinking about the multi-threaded architecture that could give the consoles an advantage, but I was also thinking about the things that you said. And remember there is a GREAT chance that the PS3 will support keyboard and mouse play. Now tell me that wouldn't take lots of people from PCs.

[RancidLunchmeat]

First.. I think high end PCs will be more powerful than consoles by the time the PS3 launches.

Which is why the 360 launch was so important to be done 'early'. When it launches, it will reign supreme for about 6 months or so. After that? High-end PCs will have overtaken them.

As far as the 6800 Ultra (or whatever) never being used to its fullest abilities.. Why not? Sure, the venerable 9700 Pro wasn't used to its fullest abilities for a long time, but it sure is out of place now, isn't it? And somewhere between now and "back then", wasn't the 9700 Pro being pushed to the max? Of course it was. Unless you upgraded "too soon" to a 9800XT, and even then.. if you sold your 9700 on Ebay, then somebody was probably using it and pushing it to it's max.

I do agree on the point that the multi-core, multi-processing aspect of these consoles will keep them alive longer, because it will take developers longer to learn how to actually use the power of the console.

But, in all truthfulness, one of the reasons I'm so excited about these new multi-core consoles is because PCs will be going multi-core as well. And once that happens, it's essentially "all over" once again, as the PCs will have the upper hand due to upgradability.

Finally, I don't think it really matters to anybody but a handful of technogeeks if the PS3 comes with a mouse & keyboard & linux or not. What MS learned with the TVPC or whatever the name of their stupid product was, is that people don't enjoy consoles and computers in the same way. Even if both are being used to play games.

The console/PC experiences are completely different. Not only in terms of the different styles of gameplay, but in terms of the environments and situations which they are used.

Now, I'm one of the few people who have a HTPC which is also my gaming PC which is hooked up to my HDTV and sits in my living room. Both my Xbox and my PS2 are connected there as well.

But I'm single, I'm a tech-geek, and most people don't have the same priorities/interests/time/money that I have. And on top of that, I still have a PC set up in my spare bedroom that I do all other sorts of "PC" stuff on it.. like spreadsheets, word processing, and even playing an occassional RTS or FPS.

[Johnny Awesome]

We're getting to the point where the budget for a game will determine it's viability in the marketplace. When console games start coming out with $100 million budgets, PC devs are going to have a very hard time competing with that due to smaller sales potential. The marketplace is killing homegrown PC gaming, but at an extremely slow pace. Devs will find ways around problems in bringing RTS and MMORPG games to consoles and then these genres will do well on consoles, just like FPS did this generation (unlike before).

You'll start seeing console games ported to PCs instead of the other way around, because PC gaming is more of a lifestyle choice than anything else. There are a lot of people competing to use the HDTV in a family, but most adult male gamers have their own PC. This is why PC gaming will probably never completely die out.

[Apoc]

Sure, the venerable 9700 Pro wasn't used to its fullest abilities for a long time, but it sure is out of place now, isn't it? And somewhere between now and "back then", wasn't the 9700 Pro being pushed to the max? Of course it was. Unless you upgraded "too soon" to a 9800XT, and even then.. if you sold your 9700 on Ebay, then somebody was probably using it and pushing it to it's max.

No, it wasn't. Maybe it run slow, maybe it couldn't keep up with new graphic cards, but it wasn't used to the max as pc games have to aim to very different rigs and this makes impossible to use any hardware to its max. It's slow now, but there isn't any game that makes full use of it.

[skilzygw]

PC Gaming is what it is. It will have its place but will never be as big as consoles plain and simple. What makes up PC Sales... Sims and its 10 billion expansions, Nancy Drew games, MMORPGS.

Its pretty dead already for my level of interest in the medium. Which is fine. I am getting to the point where I need more than 1 killer app to upgrade my rig, which is what i was doing before. But that is just my personal tendency might not be others tendencies.


And to the person who posted the AOE thing. The PC listed all three versions, all these expansions. Every other console had what one?

[Atsim]

And remember there is a GREAT chance that the PS3 will support keyboard and mouse play.

Ever played on a couch with a keyboard and a mouse? Not very comfortable.

[Dave Glue]

Which is why the 360 launch was so important to be done 'early'. When it launches, it will reign supreme for about 6 months or so. After that? High-end PCs will have overtaken them.
I'd say the 360 is launching when it is due to MS wanting to knife the Xbox1 baby as quickly as possible, and to get a head start on Sony. The minsecule sales that $600 graphics cards bring is no threat to the 360 at all - a fact I hope MS realizes now.

As far as theBut, in all truthfulness, one of the reasons I'm so excited about these new multi-core consoles is because PCs will be going multi-core as well. And once that happens, it's essentially "all over" once again, as the PCs will have the upper hand due to upgradability.
The Cell and a dual-core A64 are still quite different beasts though - just because they both have more than 1 core doesn't mean code can easily jump back and forth.

As for the PS3 keyboard/mouse issue, difficult to say if it will really be supported that much, after all the PS2 supported USB keyboard & mice as well - how many games did? That being said, there are likely more people with CRT's & LCD's than 720P HDTV's at the moment, and like the 360 there will no doubt be cheap adapters to plug into VGA/DVI - you may see a lot more consoles on desks than living room floor this time around, whether it will be enough to make keyboard/mouse an attractive option for developers is another story. If Sony releases their own PS3 branded mouse/keyboard though...

[randycat99]

I think the console hardware of this coming generation will set a new standard. ;) I don't think PC CPU's will be breaking 100 GFLOPs in a year (not even in multi-core form), so that end seems pretty well tied in for consoles, imo. I don't think PPU's will be coming standard in every PC, so that can't very well be the universal "workaround" for GFLOP performance. GPU's will likely scale accordingly on the PC, as time passes. However, it is very questionable if they can really be pushed to their potential with such relatively "underpowered" CPU's driving the show. Even if they could, there are all the traditional bottlenecks of the system bus and main memory bus that would remain a challenge for PC's (w/o some serious re-working of established traditional architectures).

So it seems to me, this coming generation of console hardware will have a lot going for it for years to come (let alone the "1st" year). The only deciding factor left is software breadth (where PC's have a natural legacy). I would forsee that PC's will continue to reign supreme in the domain of running business database and software compiling tasks. However, anything multimedia/graphics/sound for the consumer will be handily overkilled many times over by console hardware. Anything in between will likely run reasonably well, either way, as long as there is a software solution in-effect.

[mckmas8808]

I think the console hardware of this coming generation will set a new standard. :wink: I don't think PC CPU's will be breaking 100 GFLOPs in a year (not even in multi-core form), so that end seems pretty well tied in for consoles, imo. I don't think PPU's will be coming standard in every PC, so that can't very well be the universal "workaround" for GFLOP performance. GPU's will likely scale accordingly on the PC, as time passes. However, it is very questionable if they can really be pushed to their potential with such relatively "underpowered" CPU's driving the show. Even if they could, there are all the traditional bottlenecks of the system bus and main memory bus that would remain a challenge for PC's (w/o some serious re-working of established traditional architectures).




Randy you are 100% correct and describe exactly what I was trying to say (you just said it better). The one thing that the PC's will have over the consoles are GPUs. ATI and Nvidia will always come out will bigger and better GPUs, but it seems like more devs are going for the make it look, feel, talk, grow, and walk more natural. And the way I understand it that will be coming from the high floating GFLOPS that the consoles CPUs have.

And guys we are kidding ourselves when we don't even ackledge the BW problem that the PC has compared to the next-gen consoles. One big key advantage indeed.

[OVERLORD]

Interesting comments on gaming conumdrum!

Being also an Homecinema & Audio enthusiast.

This is how I see things.

Consoles are the equivalent to midi/all in one units.

Hifi & homecinema expectations & trends follow this cycle much the same.

Where are midi systems in relation to seperates in the grand scheme of things when defining hign end audio or AV?

Most got crushed by our expectations and changing tastes.

Look @ it this way whilst the consumer will be quite happy with a system in a box.

It still takes high end machines to redefine the next generation of entertainment.

Consoles need the PC's modular advancements in technology more so than people give it credit.

This modular attribute is what has seen the PC last as long as it has.

Whilst nextgen consoles aspire to be more like the venerable PC they will merely be another footnote in console history whilst the PC continues to evolve.

That's why all nextgen consoles have returned to the mainstream PC protaganist!

Namely IBM, ATI & Nvidia.

No doubt it also helps cut cost on R&D for console makers as most of the work has been shared and are subsidised by advancements in PC architecture manufacturing processes by the Open market and not just one or two companies.

[swanlee]

What people seem to keep forgetting is yes PC hardware will be more powerfull over time but how long will it be before games actually use that power? PC devs always shoot for low to middle spec PC's to run there games. So the pc may be more powerfull 6-8 months after release of the new consoles but it will be 2-3 years before and large number of games come out that actually use that power and would not be possible on the newer consoles.

So you simply can't do direct hardware comparisions cause it becomes irrelevant.

[swaaye]

To answer this question all one needs to do is to look at the ~30 years of console history. This question/prophecy comes up every time. It just goes to show that the marketing folks rock at their jobs :)

[_leech_]

To answer this question all one needs to do is to look at the ~30 years of console history. This question/prophecy comes up every time. It just goes to show that the marketing folks rock at their jobs :)

It's very different this time.

[Shifty Geezer]

To answer this question all one needs to do is to look at the ~30 years of console history. This question/prophecy comes up every time. It just goes to show that the marketing folks rock at their jobs :)Huh? Most console's have thrashed PC's for gaming. Anything with hardware sprites whipped the PC's of it's period. The only difference came with the advent of 3D where the room for growth is humungous and PC's could support new tech every 6-12 months. And for 3D we've only really had 2 generations, PS1/N64 and DC/PS2/GC/XB.

[overclocked]

We alredy have more powerful atleast Graphics cards now (7800GTX*2 in SLI).
The Cell Cpu seems ahead of its time though.

[Bobbler]

The Cell Cpu seems ahead of its time though.

Depending entirely on what you want it to do, of course.

It seems to me the technology in the consoles are about equal to what is actually purchasable now (give or take a little -- 2 dual core athlon 64s, a few gigs of ram, and a couple of 7800gtxs will be quite a bit more powerful than what's in the consoles for almost every task you throw at it... of course nobody is going to tweak a piece of software just for that setup). Of course a console is also a fraction of the cost and so much easier to deal with. In the end it doesn't really matter how powerful the hardware is compared to PCs, it is an entirely different situation (to the point where they aren't even really comparable).

[randycat99]

Here's the problem with that...everybody is bellyaching about moving to multithreading programming on consoles, but can you imagine the uproar in the PC world to actually start churning out multi-processor aware Windows software? It won't happen (exaggerating a bit, here), because just about no one will bother programming any different then they do now. So essentially, no one program will ever be able to wrestle more than 100% of a single processor (though work may be distributed across multiple processors), w/o some HUGE changes in the programming model (includes software down to the OS).

The fact remains that for pretty much all consumer software (business database and professional server being different beasts from this examle, altogether), it will run "good enough" on a single processor, so that will point to the amount of incentive to bother with scaleable programming beyond a single processor. So the PC world may have 16-core desktops for all its worth, but nearly any program Joe Blow will want to run, won't be multiprocessor aware, or even particularly good at it, even if it was. Perhaps, we'll see some oddball exceptions in a 3D animation or rendering engine, but just about everything else won't get any benefit beyond a single processor.

[a688]

Here's the problem with that...everybody is bellyaching about moving to multithreading programming on consoles, but can you imagine the uproar in the PC world to actually start churning out multi-processor aware Windows software? It won't happen (exaggerating a bit, here), because just about no one will bother programming any different then they do now. So essentially, no one program will ever be able to wrestle more than 100% of a single processor (though work may be distributed across multiple processors), w/o some HUGE changes in the programming model (includes software down to the OS).

Most PC software couldn't take advantage of multiple cores or processors. Its not because of lazy or incompitent programmers, its because they either can't or don't need to. How many cores do you need to run a spreadsheet or word. PC operating systems will perform the majority of the work for PC applications by just having programs use whatever process is less loaded down at the moment. PC programs that can use multi-core/processor to their advantage are already doing it, although maybe not as efficiently as they could.

[randycat99]

I absolutely agree, and I think this underscores a general theme that the PC is destined to hit an "implementation wall" w/o some profound changes in the way software is made and the way software is executed. The only software that will really put n-cores to work will be custom software for a specific platform...which is essentially what console development is all about (just far more mass market).

[mckmas8808]

I absolutely agree, and I think this underscores a general theme that the PC is destined to hit an "implementation wall" w/o some profound changes in the way software is made and the way software is executed. The only software that will really put n-cores to work will be custom software for a specific platform...which is essentially what console development is all about (just far more mass market).

And I guess this is why Intel's sight for multicore CPUs is so far ahead of what the consoles are doing. I think Intel is looking at the year 2012 or 2015 or something like that. Consoles would have pasted a WHOLE generation by the time the everyday CPU has multicores. Who knows the CELL in the PS4 might have 16 cores by then. Sony should be using 45 nm tech by then too so...

[overclocked]

Depending entirely on what you want it to do, of course.

It seems to me the technology in the consoles are about equal to what is actually purchasable now (give or take a little -- 2 dual core athlon 64s, a few gigs of ram, and a couple of 7800gtxs will be quite a bit more powerful than what's in the consoles for almost every task you throw at it... of course nobody is going to tweak a piece of software just for that setup). Of course a console is also a fraction of the cost and so much easier to deal with. In the end it doesn't really matter how powerful the hardware is compared to PCs, it is an entirely different situation (to the point where they aren't even really comparable).

I like your first sentence, PLAY GAMES i hope :-)

[SubD]

Here's the problem with that...everybody is bellyaching about moving to multithreading programming on consoles,

That isn't true.

Every console engineer I know has been anxiously waiting for the day they would get their hands on more VUs that look a lot like SPEs. I assume others who worked at console dev houses had similar discussions like I use to over the past five years in white board sessions or idle tech wouldn't it be cool chats with other engineers where the PS2 was extrapolated into a PS3ish piece of hardware.

Concurrent code execution has never been an issue. If I had to summarize the general consenus of engineers who do real console work it would be: Multi-core&chip/Multi-threading? Yes, more please.

[Arqentus]

Well, lets sumerise a bit.

GPU power:

PC will overtake Consoles down the line. My personal bet is Q2 2006 where it will be evenly matched or overtaking it. To keep up with PC games these days, you need to upgrade your GPU atleased every 2 years. If you dont, the quality of the graphical improvents will slowly start to deterierate sinds your GPU/CPU etc can not keep up, and you are forced to start gaming on lower resolutions with less & less graphical effects.

Money:

Lets face it, a 300 a 400$ console vs atleased a 1000$ PC. The console that will last you longer then the PC.

Market:

The Console market is way larger then the PC market today. And it shows. Lots of titles these days are multi platform. PS2/PC, Xbox/PC. The PC games releases look more & more like a extra bonus for the developers. They bring out there game for there xbox/ps console, and devote some time to make a port to the PC for a bit of extra market share & income.

Upgradeability:

Development time on a console is a lot less thanks to the fact that your hardware is fixed. You dont need to take in account the fact that xx% has only 1 to 1.4Ghz cpu's with maybe Geforce 4's at best. That xx% has 1.5 to 2.0 GPU's with R9500 -5xxxFX's. Etc.

They only need to write for one shader group, no more 1.1, 1.4, 2.0, 3.0 etc. The list goes on.

PC/Console?:

Today, the next generation consoles are beyond the current PC generation ( unless you own a 4000$ rig with the latest of the latest pc hardware ). Yet, add mouse + keyboard on them, and a OS like windows/linux, all of a sudden, you have a full fledged computer. The CPU's in the console can run any pc program you trow at it widout any problem widout even using the multi core's, only one core is enouf to run word, exel, video playback, internet brouwsers etc etc. This makes up 90% of the none gaming useage of a PC.

A 500$ PC can do those non gameing taks widout problems, yet, its the games what really push pc upgrades & sales. Take this away, by allowing consoles to perform the same talks as PC's, then we will see a collapse of PC & components sales. Thats why you wont see MS releasing addons for the xbox360 that turn the it into a pc. Becouse it will hurt them in there pc os/office sales.

To me, the future looks a lot like the past. Amiga is a prime example of a PC/Console hybriate from the past. Amiga 500 anybody?

People can not keep affording the constant increase off PC hardware costs. Todays its CPU, GPU, RAM the main items. Tomorrow you need CPU, GPU, RAM, Physic Chip, and whatever alse that needs upgrading.

Its diversity ( the big gap between PC components / generations ) & price is whats slowly killing off PC games sales. Combined with the fact that PC market is slowly becoming the Consoles games dumping ground.

[Nite_Hawk]

That isn't true.

Every console engineer I know has been anxiously waiting for the day they would get their hands on more VUs that look a lot like SPEs. I assume others who worked at console dev houses had similar discussions like I use to over the past five years in white board sessions or idle tech wouldn't it be cool chats with other engineers where the PS2 was extrapolated into a PS3ish piece of hardware.

Concurrent code execution has never been an issue. If I had to summarize the general consenus of engineers who do real console work it would be: Multi-core&chip/Multi-threading? Yes, more please.

Many people listen more to the vocal minority rather than the content majority. By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what developer do you work for?

Nite_Hawk

[mckmas8808]

Well, lets sumerise a bit.

GPU power:

PC will overtake Consoles down the line. My personal bet is Q2 2006 where it will be evenly matched or overtaking it. To keep up with PC games these days, you need to upgrade your GPU atleased every 2 years. If you dont, the quality of the graphical improvents will slowly start to deterierate sinds your GPU/CPU etc can not keep up, and you are forced to start gaming on lower resolutions with less & less graphical effects.

Money:

Lets face it, a 300 a 400$ console vs atleased a 1000$ PC. The console that will last you longer then the PC.

Market:

The Console market is way larger then the PC market today. And it shows. Lots of titles these days are multi platform. PS2/PC, Xbox/PC. The PC games releases look more & more like a extra bonus for the developers. They bring out there game for there xbox/ps console, and devote some time to make a port to the PC for a bit of extra market share & income.

Upgradeability:

Development time on a console is a lot less thanks to the fact that your hardware is fixed. You dont need to take in account the fact that xx% has only 1 to 1.4Ghz cpu's with maybe Geforce 4's at best. That xx% has 1.5 to 2.0 GPU's with R9500 -5xxxFX's. Etc.

They only need to write for one shader group, no more 1.1, 1.4, 2.0, 3.0 etc. The list goes on.

PC/Console?:

Today, the next generation consoles are beyond the current PC generation ( unless you own a 4000$ rig with the latest of the latest pc hardware ). Yet, add mouse + keyboard on them, and a OS like windows/linux, all of a sudden, you have a full fledged computer. The CPU's in the console can run any pc program you trow at it widout any problem widout even using the multi core's, only one core is enouf to run word, exel, video playback, internet brouwsers etc etc. This makes up 90% of the none gaming useage of a PC.

A 500$ PC can do those non gameing taks widout problems, yet, its the games what really push pc upgrades & sales. Take this away, by allowing consoles to perform the same talks as PC's, then we will see a collapse of PC & components sales. Thats why you wont see MS releasing addons for the xbox360 that turn the it into a pc. Becouse it will hurt them in there pc os/office sales.

To me, the future looks a lot like the past. Amiga is a prime example of a PC/Console hybriate from the past. Amiga 500 anybody?

People can not keep affording the constant increase off PC hardware costs. Todays its CPU, GPU, RAM the main items. Tomorrow you need CPU, GPU, RAM, Physic Chip, and whatever alse that needs upgrading.

Its diversity ( the big gap between PC components / generations ) & price is whats slowly killing off PC games sales. Combined with the fact that PC market is slowly becoming the Consoles games dumping ground.

QFT. This is the best overall view that I was trying to display in creating this thread. Acert has everything and I mean everything covered from front to back. I wish we could save this for 2 to 4 years from now just to use it as reference.

[pjbliverpool]

One thing to consider is that while the xbox may be able to output similar to PC graphics today, it does so at a much lower resolution. The next gen consoles won't be afforded that luxury and thus they will fall behind technically much faster.

Think about it, if the xbox's requirement was to render everything at 1024x768 today, would it still have similar to PC graphics?

[borntosoul]

i'm not so sure about the power of the new consols yet!
i'm waiting to see how r-e-a-l released games run and then make my judgement.
so i dont think anyone can say how long pc will take to surpass this coming generation of consols. we got dual cores getting faster and new gpus coming next year that will kick butt big time.

sony europe did say theyre calling the ps3 an entertainment machine instead of a games machine--as funny as that sounds it does show where they are heading.
consols will be home computing and entertainment in one package. i dont think the pc will die within the life span of these coming generation of consols (slowly losing steam maybe) - after that though i wont be too suprised if it did die.

for me the main problem with pc is this-
we have to get to the point where programs just work- no fiddling around, no fine tuning, no drivers, no compatablity problems, and no upgrading. it should be just like watching a DVD, put it in and it works--current pc dont do that- im not sure they ever will - this alone will eventually kill it off because everything will be much more mass market than it is today and joe average and his wife should be able to use it.

the main problem with consols is-
*edit -they have to cut corners on consols to keep the price down.
theyre great after a year but when a the pc catches up and surpasses them their appeal is not as great. also pc games tend to be more personal and in depth.


games that sell in millions of copies will rule more than ever before, new era of gaming will hit us soon enough. just look at the growing % of gamers these days that arent even mildly tech savy. consols look to have the legs on that score.

[Shifty Geezer]

it should be just like watching a DVD, put it in and it works--current pc dont do that- im not sure they ever will - this alone will eventually kill it off because everything will be much more mass market than it is today and joe average and his wife should be able to use it.I agree (though this is slightly OT). PCs have to be backwards compatible and use lots of different IHV components. There'll always be trouble. In the good old dayts of computing you'd buy a computer and it's have a fixed collection of bit for people to use. I know a lot of PC fans like the upgradeable nature of PCs, but IMO if you're going to spend money ugrading a machine, it's no different to buying a new machine. the only thing going for PC's was the low price due to competition, but I don't think that low price is worth the hassle.

I look forward to the re-emergence of a computer like the C64 or BBC of Amiga or any of those millions of machines that just worked without having to faff around. Actually I guess that's the Mac is, but I'd rather have a REAL computer :p

[pc999]

I did not read the whole thread but I think that consoles do have some advantages over PC this time.

1- our eyes, lets supose that KZ2 can and will be real time (they both say tthey can do it easly, ie as a standart), then if you had a PC game with 2X the detail, will we notice that? I really doubt we will, we would need much more than 2X the detail till notice the difference, and till we get that kind of power it would have been passed a lot of time.

2- their money, with rising costs from devlopment I think that only very few will dare to spend a lot more tome/money to add even something like 2-4X the detail, specially if it will not be noticed.

3- Those consoles CPU seems very strong and I doubt that will be surpassed anytime soon in the desktop area (but here of corse in a PC they may not be doingg physics and sound).

4-If we see the same, why spend 3-4k in a PC if we can spend 300 in a console, will be a very good reason for many.

I am not saying that PC will not be more powerfull, just people will see less and less reasons to upgrade it, all IMO.

Anyway I think that this should make live a lot harder for PC this time.

[Sandwich]

Many aspects being discussed here except the most important one: GAMES.

The PC will retain a share of the market aslong as there's people buying games for it.

The PC holds 99% the RTS / strategy genre. Games like warcraft3 or Civ3 simply don't work if you don't sit up close to the monitor with a keyboard + mouse in front of you.
PC is still FPS king. Aslong as there's hardcore players who prefer the superior keyboard+mouse setup, PCs got the edge here.
You cannot have a modding community on a console either.

So the obvious PC killer would be a console+keyboard+mouse+diskspace: a homecomputer. Yet the PC has killed all competitors except the apple, which barely manages to holds on to a tiny niche of desktop publishing.
The best thing was the amiga and it died because the popularity of the amiga500 held newer models back. Games had to work with the 500 to sell and the OCS was aging fast.

Somehow consumers would accept that the PC can and must be upgraded every once in a while, but not any other computer.
Part of the reason is that upgrading a PC could make a big difference for the games you already owned: some games would support the whole range: hercules, CGA, EGA, VGA/MCGA or PCspeaker, adlib, SB, MT32, MT32 + SB.

[mckmas8808]

The PC holds 99% the RTS / strategy genre. Games like warcraft3 or Civ3 simply don't work if you don't sit up close to the monitor with a keyboard + mouse in front of you.
PC is still FPS king. Aslong as there's hardcore players who prefer the superior keyboard+mouse setup, PCs got the edge here.
You cannot have a modding community on a console either.

Well it's being rumored that the PS3 will allow keyboard and mouse support if the devs want it so there you go. And thanks to the Xbox FPS are now looking good to console owners.

[Junkstyle]

Console GPU's faster than PC GPU's?

When pig's fly.

Do you know where all the next gen console GPU's are coming from? The PC market. Last gen only MSFT was using a PC based GPU. This next gen they ALL are using PC based GPU's. Why are they using PC based GPU's? Because they are faster than anything they could make or find elsewhere. Do you think it was easy for Sony to swallow its pride and ask for basically the G70 core from Nvidia? Why did Sony go with a PC based GPU? Because it had no other choice to remain competitive. They would literally get killed by Xbox360 and its ATI GPU. Do you guys know how small a market GPU's are for consoles versus PC's? Playstation2 was the biggest success of all the current gen consoles and it sold 80million units in 5 years...Nvidia sold 100million PC GPU chips in ONE year. Multiply that by 5 years and you got 500million PC GPUs versus 80million PS2 GPUs. PC's are where the money is at for ATI and NVidia. I dont see that changing.

[london-boy]

ARE YOU GUYS DUMB?


No we're not. Enjoy your stay.

[Sandwich]

Well it's being rumored that the PS3 will allow keyboard and mouse support if the devs want it so there you go. And thanks to the Xbox FPS are now looking good to console owners.

Will console gamers buy those accesories for their console and will game devs support these devices?
Also consider that console gamers typically sit in a chair in front of their telly. I suppose a keyboard in your lap can work but where do you keep your mouse?
You'll want your mouse arm resting in a comfortable position and that requires a tall straight backed chair and a desk or a tall table in front of the screen.
I reckon for most people that would require moving the console and the screen to where the PC is usually at and that seems off to me. Can't see this becoming a popular thing.

[london-boy]

Will console gamers buy those accesories for their console and will game devs support these devices?
Also consider that console gamers typically sit in a chair in front of their telly. I suppose a keyboard in your lap can work but where do you keep your mouse?
You'll want your mouse arm resting in a comfortable position and that requires a tall straight backed chair and a desk or a tall table in front of the screen.
I reckon for most people that would require moving the console and the screen to where the PC is usually at and that seems off to me. Can't see this becoming a popular thing.

It will only be as popular as people plugging an X360 to their PC monitor. Some people will do it, maybe "many". At least next gen consoles will run at more-or-less PC resolutions so playing on a PC monitor won't give us brain tumors like it happened with current gen.

[mckmas8808]

Will console gamers buy those accesories for their console and will game devs support these devices?
Also consider that console gamers typically sit in a chair in front of their telly. I suppose a keyboard in your lap can work but where do you keep your mouse?
You'll want your mouse arm resting in a comfortable position and that requires a tall straight backed chair and a desk or a tall table in front of the screen.
I reckon for most people that would require moving the console and the screen to where the PC is usually at and that seems off to me. Can't see this becoming a popular thing.

Well some people do have tables, end tables, or folding trays in their houses so it's not impossible. But I don't know if cosole buyers are going to embrace it. I don't know if devs will support k/b for the PS3. We can only wait.

[AlphaWolf]

Well if they 'allow' the use of a kb/mouse for their online gaming, they will create a huge rift in the gaming comunity. RTS and FPS players would have a huge advantage with KB/Mouse. Until the consoles ship with KB/mouse, pcs will likely rule those genres.

[Shifty Geezer]

Surely anyone that serious about FPS gaming will pick up a cheap USB keyboard/mouse combo (if not use their PC equipment) on their PS3.

[Rodéric]

Well if they 'allow' the use of a kb/mouse for their online gaming, they will create a huge rift in the gaming comunity. RTS and FPS players would have a huge advantage with KB/Mouse. Until the consoles ship with KB/mouse, pcs will likely rule those genres.

You're ASKING me to insert something about the revolution controller here, right ? ;)
(Revolution Controller might very well rule the FPS genre.)

PC : struggle with OS and drivers and stuff, install, wait, launch, set options, start, change options again, start... after a while, play !
Console : insert game disk, switch on, take a pad... play !

[AlphaWolf]

You're ASKING me to insert something about the revolution controller here, right ? ;)
(Revolution Controller might very well rule the FPS genre.)

With addons but I doubt it, it does have a lot more hope than PS3 and XBox360 controllers.

PC : struggle with OS and drivers and stuff, install, wait, launch, set options, start, change options again, start... after a while, play !
Console : insert game disk, switch on, take a pad...wait 5 minutes for game to load, play !

Fixed

[mckmas8808]

Console : insert game disk, switch on, take a pad...wait 5 minutes for game to load, play !


I've never played a game that took 5 minutes to load. At least not that I can remember.

[pjbliverpool]

Console : insert game disk, switch on, take a pad... play !

Yep, how boring!

[Junkstyle]

No we're not. Enjoy your stay.

Hi. I editted my post to take out that line. I had NO idea that someone would take offense to such a rhetorical question.