Thinking the total view: Consoles as cheap PC's

[quest55720]

You can't get an equivalent PC (high end media PC) for anywhere near the price of a PS3. Even buying just the Bluray HD movie player functions would put you outside the $600 price. Are you really suggesting that you can get a PC suitable for gaming for $300?

A sub 400 dollar pc with a 150 dollar video card and some extra ram should play almost any pc game well that is the same price as a ps3. You still have to add a mouse and keyboard + a suitable HDTV to a PS3. Why would I spend 1000s on a HDTV and movies and not be able to play them when ever the kids want to play games or someone wants to surf the net. I also doubt the ps3 blue ray playback will be as good as a standalone player because it would piss off all the blue ray player makers.

I think the best uses of the PS3 will be streaming content from the PC and surfing the net or checking e-mail every once in a while for example if someone is using the PC.

 

[quest55720]

Unless you can/want to do two things at once like watch a movie and work on something

I do that all the time best reason to keep my PC in the living room.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Unless you can/want to do two things at once like watch a movie and work on something

Yup which makes it attractive to an even smaller subset of people.

 

[SPM]

Actually I would go for a bottom of the range PC and a PS3 rather than a high end PC.

Not everybody needs a dedicated PC to do word processing or Internet access while playing games or watching movies. Those people who do would probably be better off getting a cheap Walmart $350 computer for wordprocessing, emails, and Internet browsing, and a PS3 for games, music, multi-media and movies.

Email, Office applications and web browsing don't require fast PCs and don't even require 3D acceleration (CAD applications do, but few people do this at home. Multimedia does, but you can do this on the PS3). You can also share files between the PC and PS3 via LAN or wireless networking.

On the other hand, for decent games and multi-media, you really do need high end graphics, and for decent movies, you should be looking at HD TVs. Computer monitors also often have poor dynamic range or slow response and so make bad movie viewing stations.

You don't have to go for HD TV if you buy a PS3, and there is Xbox 360 or Wii if you want to spend less, but I think HDTVs will catch on very quickly and prices will drop rapidly. There are three reasons - 1) analogue TV services are being replaced by digital soon so a lot of people will be buying new TVs anyway and many will want the latest technology. 2) new HD satelite and cable services are becoming available soon. 3) HD movies will be on sale for the first time due to Blu-ray players becoming available soon. These things will have a major impact on the market.

 

[pcchen]

Game consoles (not only PS3) are not replacements for PC. The main reason behind this is mostly economical.

As many people has pointed out, PC has a lot of applications running. Of course, for most works there are alternatives on Linux or other platforms, and it's quite possible to port many of them to a console running Linux. It's also quite possible to write a good GUI system for it with enough resources and time (look what Apple has done on a BSD kernel).

However, the big problem is, people use PC to do a lot of different things. Maybe you just use PC to game, surfing the net, watch some video, etc. But there are many people who use their PC to do other things. There are people who use PC to edit their home-made video, managing/processing their digital photos, authoring posters, musics, ... etc. These different things not only need different applications, but also needs different hardware peripherals (such as printers, scanners, MIDI keyboards, pen tablets, etc.). The only platform which can remotely compete with PC on this regard is Apple Macs. And yet, the choices of applications and hardware peripherals on Macs are still limited compared to PC.

Now, to use a game console as a replacement for PC, you need to provide a very wide range of applications and hardware peripherals. Of course, these days most hardware peripherals use USB, but you still need drivers for them, and many peripherals don't even have Mac driver, Linux drivers are even rarer. Furthermore, limited choices mean higher prices. Even hardwares designed for Mac are sold with a premium. How will a hardware peripheral for a game console be priced?

So, IMHO, the reason why PC can't be replaced is simply because it's cheaper. Various attempts to create a cheaper alternative failed, repeatedly. I don't see how a game console would be different.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So, IMHO, the reason why PC can't be replaced is simply because it's cheaper. Various attempts to create a cheaper alternative failed, repeatedly. I don't see how a game console would be different.

Consoles would be different in having an install base of tens of millions. They will sell on their gaming strengths alone, wheras a computer rivalling the PC has to be sold on it's ability to rival the PC. If you wanted to write a music application on "Computer X" you're looking at a tiddly little market to sell it to, but if for example PS2 had Linux as standard, there'd be a potential 100 million users to sell to. There's also advantages in some areas. I expect a PS3 to be much, much better at accoustic modelling than a PC for example, and if so a software synth on PS3 could see a lot of popularity amongst musicians. Likewise it should be better at video editing (save maybe the limited RAM?) than many a PC, with much better support for realtime effects especially as the closed system allows full use of the hardware (within restrictions of the APIs) so leveraging the GPU to help is a much stronger option for a closed-box console than PC.

Thus I don't think consoles becoming PC equivalents can be compared to other computers that failed to take the PC space. There's lots of ways to compete. It probably won't be easy, and to be a success I expect takes more vision and understanding than any of these companies actually has, but i wouldn't rule against the idea completely just based on histirical evidence.

 

[TheChefO]

Consoles would be different in having an install base of tens of millions. They will sell on their gaming strengths alone, wheras a computer rivalling the PC has to be sold on it's ability to rival the PC. If you wanted to write a music application on "Computer X" you're looking at a tiddly little market to sell it to, but if for example PS2 had Linux as standard, there'd be a potential 100 million users to sell to. There's also advantages in some areas. I expect a PS3 to be much, much better at accoustic modelling than a PC for example, and if so a software synth on PS3 could see a lot of popularity amongst musicians. Likewise it should be better at video editing (save maybe the limited RAM?) than many a PC, with much better support for realtime effects especially as the closed system allows full use of the hardware (within restrictions of the APIs) so leveraging the GPU to help is a much stronger option for a closed-box console than PC.

Thus I don't think consoles becoming PC equivalents can be compared to other computers that failed to take the PC space. There's lots of ways to compete. It probably won't be easy, and to be a success I expect takes more vision and understanding than any of these companies actually has, but i wouldn't rule against the idea completely just based on histirical evidence.

Good points Shifty - along this train of thought do you think it's possible they are designing ps3 with open Ram slots or upgradable ram in some other fashion to facilitate these possibilities more realistically? What would it cost them extra to have an open ram slot or two and have cell designed to access said ram when available? From what I can tell it shouldn't be a big deal and if they're truly serious about "ps3=computer" this would be a big selling point for realizing that vision.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Why would a PC need to be upgradeable in processing power and/or memory to "truly be a PC"?
If the platform itself is rejuvenated every 5 or 6 years, I think that's good enough upgradeability.
PC tweakers and upgraders are a very different breed of mainstream PC users, most people haven't opened their PC case and aren't really willing to.

 

[TheChefO]

Why would a PC need to be upgradeable in processing power and/or memory to "truly be a PC"?
If the platform itself is rejuvenated every 5 or 6 years, I think that's good enough upgradeability.
PC tweakers and upgraders are a very different breed of mainstream PC users, most people haven't opened their PC case and aren't really willing to.

yes but 512 total ram - 256 for apps is a bit crap for the apps Shifty was saying. I agree ps3 is more than capable of handling the processing, but it needs more ram to do so. It doesn't "need" more ram for gaming apps/movies/music, but it does need more ram if you as a consumer want to use your ps3 for more intensive apps effectively without disk-swapping all day.

 

[rabidrabbit]

I believe 256MB (+256MB) could be enough if the OS is lean and you're not running more than one heavier app (like photo editing) and one smaller app (like VOIP).
It could well be enough for simple video and music editing too, but of course as it is, the PS3 will not cope too well if you start making professional level video, image and music processing/editing tasks (editing your 100 film pr0n collection into one "best of" collection I do think is comparable to a professional level task ).

 

[TheChefO]

I believe 256MB (+256MB) could be enough if the OS is lean and you're not running more than one heavier app (like photo editing) and one smaller app (like VOIP).
It could well be enough for simple video and music editing too, but of course as it is, the PS3 will not cope too well if you start making professional level video, image and music processing/editing tasks (editing your 100 film pr0n collection into one "best of" collection I do think is comparable to a professional level task ).

I can tell you from experience that you truly can't have enough ram when it comes to video editing. For a typical photo touch-up ps3's 256 should be fine but disregarding multitasking functions all together, the ps3 will need more ram to efficiently edit video.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In most tasks 256 MB of RAM and the HDD would be adequate if the OS is lean. On my computer Windows takes 240 MB before doing anything, and usually I'm working within 50 MB of data across several programs, the rare exception being large multilayered graphics. Obviously more RAM would be beneficial but mostly for pro work or people who use images far too large for their purposes (10 megapixel photos for 6x4 prints ). Given recent comments I wouldn't be surprised if Sony test the water with PS3 and then offer an upgradable Cell PS computer proper with more RAM etc solely for non-gaming (and no games would take advantage of it) if they deem it viable.

 

[TheChefO]

In most tasks 256 MB of RAM and the HDD would be adequate if the OS is lean. On my computer Windows takes 240 MB before doing anything, and usually I'm working within 50 MB of data across several programs, the rare exception being large multilayered graphics. Obviously more RAM would be beneficial but mostly for pro work or people who use images far too large for their purposes (10 megapixel photos for 6x4 prints ). Given recent comments I wouldn't be surprised if Sony test the water with PS3 and then offer an upgradable Cell PS computer proper with more RAM etc solely for non-gaming (and no games would take advantage of it) if they deem it viable.

Agreed but they WILL need to add ram (or have an option to add ram) for proper video editing. For most every other situation it will be fine as long as like you say the os is "lean".

 

[rabidrabbit]

In addition to adding more RAM, they'd need to add a DVD-RW, or even a writable BD, support for jog/shuttle wheel, dual monitor support, Firewire, audio inputs...... but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
PS3 is, after all, a very very entry level "PC".

 

[TheChefO]

In addition to adding more RAM, they'd need to add a DVD-RW, or even a writable BD, support for jog/shuttle wheel, dual monitor support, Firewire, audio inputs...... but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
PS3 is, after all, a very very entry level "PC".

Those are mostly external devices that can be purchased if need be. If the make the ram an upgradable option in the same vein (this would be new from what I know of ps3) then this will make it vastly more desireable as a potential media pc.

 

[SPM]

I don't think professional video editing is practicable on the PS3. The 60GB HD is too small for a start. You can add an external USB hard drive, but that would be slower than desirable. You would probably want a couple of 250MB SATA II drives with RAID 0 for that.

Still, how many home users do professional video editing? For editing of webcam movie clips with MainActor, the PS3 should be fine.

There is the possibility of an expandable PS3 media PC which will also run PS3 games, but this is unlikely for a couple of years at least.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Professional anything is likely impractical on PS3. That's not it's target though. For home video editing it should work okay, limited only by the speed of the HDD. For the record I've video edited on a P133 with 128 MBs back in the day!

 

[Powderkeg]

Consoles would be different in having an install base of tens of millions.

As opposed to PC's which have an install base in the billion+ range? A couple of billion if we throw in business workstations.

And out of curiosity, how many of those console owners just want a game console?

 

[pcchen]

Consoles would be different in having an install base of tens of millions. They will sell on their gaming strengths alone, wheras a computer rivalling the PC has to be sold on it's ability to rival the PC. If you wanted to write a music application on "Computer X" you're looking at a tiddly little market to sell it to, but if for example PS2 had Linux as standard, there'd be a potential 100 million users to sell to. There's also advantages in some areas. I expect a PS3 to be much, much better at accoustic modelling than a PC for example, and if so a software synth on PS3 could see a lot of popularity amongst musicians. Likewise it should be better at video editing (save maybe the limited RAM?) than many a PC, with much better support for realtime effects especially as the closed system allows full use of the hardware (within restrictions of the APIs) so leveraging the GPU to help is a much stronger option for a closed-box console than PC.

Of course, consoles have the potential to have a big install base. However, it's still a fraction of the PC's install base. The annual worldwide PC shipment is more than 100 million units. This is roughly the same as PS2 in its whole lifetime. Now as there's more competing consoles out there, the install base for a single console can be smaller.

Regarding to PS3's performance, yes, it would be better than most cheap PC in some area, such as (obviously) graphics and maybe audio processing (CELL is much more powerful than most sound DSP out there). The main problem with PS3 on video editing is the amount of harddrive space, and USB HD is not a good substitution. Software sampler has the same problem (or even worse, some sound libraries are hundreds of GB). Of course, it can be remedied by installing a larger HD.

But the point is, the user base of PC has a very wide range of applications. They are not restricted to some specific works. People buy PC for various reasons, but they all buy the same PC (or, in the same architecture). This amortized the industry, making it much more efficient. Look at x86 processors. X86 is an archaic architecture originated about 30 years ago, and was announced to be death for several occasions, but it's now one of the most successful architectures on earth. The performance from such "grudge" is so great that only few other architectures can compete, and they are all losing.

I don't doubt that you can make a game console to be able to do some relatively simple things. Some people only need to browse web sites, read/write e-mails, and maybe watching some movies. These can be done with a game console. My father only uses his computer to play Spider game in Window. This certainly can be replaced with anything as long as it has the same Spider game. However, this alone won't make game consoles to replace PC. I think it will coexist with PC for quite a long time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As opposed to PC's which have an install base in the billion+ range? A couple of billion if we throw in business workstations.

My reference to install base was only in new computers. You need a 'critical mass' to establish a market and make it viable for software developments. No-one's going to write software for a machine with 1 million users unless they can be sure of high adoption (or low costs to develop), whereas with 20 million + installed, you have a viable market. There were plenty of machines supporting diverse and complete software only a couple of decades ago, with far smaller user bases than these consoles have. If a compnay could make a living writing a WP for the Amiga with 5 million users, an installed base of 50 million conosles capable of running a WP is likely to be a lot more profitable.

Also, despite the PC market offering the largest user base for your software, there's plenty of reasons to develop for an alternative closed box solution. If you've ever written a PC app' you'll know there's no end of bugs and glitches that appear due to platform problems. You can probably pick any software title in existence and find machine on which it doesn't run. Some companies support of these machines is just to ignore the problem which is extremely frustrating for the users. Writing for a closed-box system you can be pretty guarenteed that it'll work on other people's machines just as it works on yours (depends on software conflicts between user installed softwares, which a well designed OS shouldn't have...) which saves you a lot of time and hassle. And in the PC space, there's huge amounts of competition. If you write an easy to use WP for PC, you're up against Word and will likely never be noticed. If you write that program for a computer with 100,000 users and no competition, you're likely going to do very well. For a computer with 50 million suers and no competition, things are looking even better.

If largest user base were the only criteria on which platform to develop for, XB, GC and Apple wouldn't exist. What's needed is a healthy, viable market, larger enough and with suitable demand. That's an unknown in the console space ATM, but what is certain is the healthy sized market.

And out of curiosity, how many of those console owners just want a game console?

That can be calculated as 'Number of console owners - Number of those owners with PCs'