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 Geezer]

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 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.