Will PS4 finally posed a threat to PC?

[MfA]

Because i do not see Nintendo going back to hardcore hardware and MS will not want to harm their Windows market.

M$ is schizophrenic ... their consoles are already hurting the Windows market. Which is kind of strange, since the xbox has only ever earned them negative bucks (overall). If they ever wised up they'd make licensable fixed configuration Windows MCE PC designs for the living room with a special branding for compatible games and ditch the bloody xbox.

System stability is not an issue anymore in this age of virtualization, games could simply be run in a clean system with known m$ mandated configuration (make this an option, so us expert users could still multitask with non microsoft approved applications in the background). Throw in mandatory trusted computing modules and hey presto ... the PC becomes a console in every way important to them.

 

[NRP]

M$ is schizophrenic ... their consoles are already hurting the Windows market.

How so? Didn't MS just sell 40m copies of W7?

The 360 may have hurt Windows gaming, but piracy may play a bigger factor there if you believe publishers.

 

[Acert93]

M$ is schizophrenic ... their consoles are already hurting the Windows market. Which is kind of strange, since the xbox has only ever earned them negative bucks (overall). If they ever wised up they'd make licensable fixed configuration Windows MCE PC designs for the living room with a special branding for compatible games and ditch the bloody xbox.

I think this would either create an expensive 3DO disaster or a very unevent experience.

1. Very Fixed HW: The HW manufacturers would want to make a profit on the "PC-console" which would make it DOA.

2. Allow Wiggle room in HW: Cutting corners on HW would create potential compatibility issues, if not a consistent experience. Unless you mandate certain HW as a baseline and very specific designs, in which case you pretty much have a 3DO.

On the PC space, I think the writing was on the wall before the Xbox. PC hardware is expensive. PC's have all sorts of STUPID update/driver/compatibility issues. PCs have mass piracy. PCs have competiting software avenues and no real strong incentives for the platform distributor for quality control, distribution, marketing, etc. These could have been handled differently, still could. But there is a reason everyone, not just MS, jumped ship. Valve, id, Epic, Crytek, etc.

It was pretty inevitable as consoles went HD, got hard drives, enabled robust online experiences, etc and really pushed ahead in social gaming in a way the PC never did in terms of living room experience. Consoles pretty much devoured most genres and demographics--MS only jumped in to get their share before the PC died.

Maybe they helped accelerate the demise of the PC. Then again MS now has a HUGE investment in Xbox LIVE. LIVE has a lot more potential than a lot of their initiatives in the last 5 years. It touches millions of consumers and gives MS a leg in the digital distribution world it never would have to the degree they now have without the Xbox. The Xbox also has given MS a strong position with developers, both in tools and publishing software.

So the Xbox loses money. And MS cannot maintain internal game studios.

On the other hand their $5B investment resulted in Live, connecting nearly 20M general consumers, and a huge leg up in DD. And they are making money now.

Not bad of an investment for a company looking for new avenues of investment and diversification. Sure, it doesn't make "PC gamers" happy. But that market as defined now (high end graphics, niche genres) is small and not self sustaining to the degree the console market is. Without the Xbox the future looks a lot more like Sony and Cell (move Xbox sales into the PS3 pool and the side-effect of the PS3 being the high end all inclusive machine) and the landscape for MS looks very different.

The only way for MS to have a competitive closed box in the console environment is to do what Sony and Nintendo do. Going the crap-box with multi-IHV distributing various configs with premium markups would be, well, 3DO.

And that is a disaster and doesn't do anything meaningful for MS at all.

 

[Acert93]

How so? Didn't MS just sell 40m copies of W7?

The 360 may have hurt Windows gaming, but piracy may play a bigger factor there if you believe publishers.

That and the install base for playing most console games isn't there. How many gamers own PCs that can play games with the same ease and quality as consoles.

I remember CoD4 MW1 refusing to play one day, even after many re-installs, and running horribly an a $400 GPU from 2004 (6800GT). The experience is expensive and inconsistent.

An a side not, a "Windows 7 Live Edition" DLC for the Xbox3 where you could use standard apps, print to standard printers, browse, etc would be cool. I would dig that a lot. But then again I don't have a TV and use my Xbox on my PC monitor. Having Windows as an extension of my Xbox would be nice for multifunctionality, but how many people want that?

I think most would settle for a browser and Google-like apps, video chat, etc.

 

[MfA]

1. Very Fixed HW: The HW manufacturers would want to make a profit on the "PC-console" which would make it DOA.

Long term contracts.

PC hardware is expensive.

The silicon costs the same per mm2 to fab whether it goes into a PC or into a console.

PC's have all sorts of STUPID update/driver/compatibility issues.

As I said, certified configurations with a base OS which is under full control of Microsoft (everything else would run virtualized, so nothing is beyond their control ... unless the user elects to run the games in a less controlled environment).

PCs have mass piracy.

As I said, "mandatory trusted computing modules".

PCs have competiting software avenues and no real strong incentives for the platform distributor for quality control, distribution, marketing, etc.

Make the trusted computing module only functional for certified games (and purchasable separately for "normal" PCs as add in cards).

Maybe they helped accelerate the demise of the PC. Then again MS now has a HUGE investment in Xbox LIVE.

As of yet a huge fucking loss ...

LIVE has a lot more potential than a lot of their initiatives in the last 5 years. It touches millions of consumers and gives MS a leg in the digital distribution world it never would have to the degree they now have without the Xbox. The Xbox also has given MS a strong position with developers, both in tools and publishing software.

Or they could have been Steam ... which has as many customers and didn't need 5 Billion dollar to get there.

And they are making money now.

Until it exceeds the money they could have made simply putting it in the bank it's a pyrrhic victory at best.

For all of the problems PC gaming has Microsoft was and is in the very unique position that it can solve them, it can do it while still competing in the living room with consoles, it can do it while not dangerously undermining one of it's main cash cows (Windows OS).

 

[Lazy8s]

Platforms that have become ubiquitous standards, such as the PC, have momentum beyond what any competitor could push with their own marketing drive.

Only another platform originating from outside its scope of functionality, and therefore not limited to those defining boundaries, has the freedom to swallow up the majority of its market within an intersecting, larger scope.

The functionality of a desktop PC was already an overlap for a set-top console, but the mobile nature of a cellphone allows a new freedom of use.

The comprehensive interface of the iPhone OS will allow the reach of its devices to grow and eventually encompass the majority of the market for day-to-day personal computing.

 

[BRiT]

No.

 

[Acert93]

MfA you totally glossed over the fact that IHV's sell, and make a profit from, hardware sales.

You are ignoring all the dynamics of why consoles are so popular with mass penetration and high software sales that PC games even in their golden age never got near collectively in the same demographics, and present a mythical PC beast that has never exhisted and is quite contrary to the success of the PC market.

It is pretty much the worse parts of PC and Console gaming all in one instead of the best of both. It would be an adjunct failure, which doesn't help MS at all.

As for the losses as noted they can also be seen as an investment. They have the money, they can either evolve or twittle their thumbs. None of their other recent expensive initiatives has produced the kind of results as Live in the consumer space.

Don't worry though, PC gamers have more things to hate soon--when MS pushes LIVE into the PC space. You will see Live pushed on PC sooner than Windows pushed wholesale on consoles.

 

[MfA]

MfA you totally glossed over the fact that IHV's sell, and make a profit from, hardware sales.

The machines don't have to be made by IHVs ... whether Microsoft loses money on "PCs" or consoles doesn't really matter now does it? (It would be a PC in that it's software is compatible with PCs, but it doesn't have to be user upgradeable as far OS is concerned for instance ... crippling it a bit to make it unattractive on the desktop wouldn't be too hard, simply not putting normal USB busses on it would probably suffice.)

They subsidize it, any developer who wants to make use of the DRM hardware, Microsoft's seal of approval and the ability to run games in the "core" OS (with controlled environment) pay them for the privilege. The general console development model ...

You are ignoring all the dynamics of why consoles are so popular with mass penetration and high software sales that PC games even in their golden age never got near collectively in the same demographics, and present a mythical PC beast that has never exhisted and is quite contrary to the success of the PC market.

Well this is a bit hard to refute now isn't it ... gimme one of those dynamics and I'll try.

Don't worry though, PC gamers have more things to hate soon--when MS pushes LIVE into the PC space. You will see Live pushed on PC sooner than Windows pushed wholesale on consoles.

What do they have to push with? The games from their own developers which due to internal politics come out late on the PC or not at all. They are playing catchup and they can't play it the way they operate now.

 

[makattack]

Interestingly, I use my mobile phone more like a PC these days. I have a HTC G1 (TMobile) and will typically be running the following apps while I'm on the train:

ConnectBot (SSH client)
Music Player
Browser (Google Apps & other online applications)
IMAP Mail Client

If the PS4 came in a pocket sized format, with keyboard, trackball & touch screen, can play games such as COD:MW2 & be my phone at the same time, I will be the first to setup camp outside a store... one week in advance of release.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Also, consider that becoming more PC-like has not resulted in a whole lot more in the way of sales. Given that all these non-gaming features (as an aside, Wii Fit has much more claim to be a "game" than Netflix or Facebook ) haven't attracted a bunch of new people, what would make you think that adding even more would translate into more sales?

 

[patsu]

Some non-games are useful on a game console, but game consoles won't replace PC per se. They may become powerful enough to handle PC-level tasks though. The UI has to change too.

 

[Miksu]

It could, if it includes remote desktop client.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The comprehensive interface of the iPhone OS will allow the reach of its devices to grow and eventually encompass the majority of the market for day-to-day personal computing.

Ummm, yeah, I do NOT like typing out an e-mail on Iphone. I do NOT like doing instant messaging on Iphone. I do NOT like video conference calls on Iphone. I do NOT like editing spreadsheets, documents, graphs, photo's movies on Iphone. I do NOT like browsing the web on the Iphone compared to a traditional computer.

It certainly has a place in mobile content delivery, but it certainly isn't going to come close to replacing day-to-day personal computing in the next 100 years, IMO.

Regards,
SB

 

[sunscar]

I'd just kill to have access to them for use as cheap, uniform, predictable computing nodes. None of this hardware gimping BS we saw with RSX under PS3Linux. None of this hacking away for years *just* to see if it's even possible to slip a boot loader in somewhere (360). I think it'd be a hell of a thing to build a small cluster on the cheap that beats the pants off a world-class monster from 2005. I think that's where most of my interrest comes from in this.

 

[rekator]

I don't think we saw a console with real PC capacities (so no Amiga return ), but more close and restrictive PC functions on console. So access to some cloud softwares, no programability. It's more a client of a network. The importants things are security and money and stability (no need to go under the hood).

 

[patsu]

It could, if it includes remote desktop client.

You still need a host PC though. In this use case, the console simply extends the reach of the PC.

These days, I use the PS3 exclusively for family media browsing, searching and viewing. I do wish they implement a more polished non-game UI.

On the PS3, you can use a mouse and keyboard to navigate the XMB and the Photo Gallery app. Unfortunately, it's not very consistent.

The app is also too flashy and graphics heavy compared to a PC tool. So it's not just a technical or specs problem. The console/game developer has to learn how to write a good, consistent UI app.

EDIT: I personally think that just like the phone, the console will gain more (useful) non-game functionality. It may reduce the need for a full blown PC in the living room for many. I also think some apps like video conferencing and media browsing have different experience when conducted over the living room HDTV. One can certainly stick a media PC there, but you don't really have to go that way.

 

[Miksu]

You still need a host PC though. In this use case, the console simply extends the reach of the PC.

That's true but I was thinking in terms of how PCs are used in business nowadays. PS4 can't ever replace a PC if it can't replace the computer at work. But we're in a situation we're more and more of the computers are just "thin clients" which operate on other computers through remote desktop. Also it's quite common that the "main computer" is just a platform to run virtualized environments.

So, PS4 needs two things:
1. Remote desktop client which can be used to connect to a Windows-based computers.
2. Support for running virtual images.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Don't worry though, PC gamers have more things to hate soon--when MS pushes LIVE into the PC space. You will see Live pushed on PC sooner than Windows pushed wholesale on consoles.

How willing would MS be to crush companies like Valve if it was required to get LIVE into the premier spot in the PC space?

 

[h0munkulus]

well, you have two possible ways to approach PC features on consoles.

1. booting a separate full featured OS (linux based or windows). problem: no connectivity between the "console" and the "pc". console is either in "gaming" or "working" mode. this is essentially what the ps3 offered with the linux install option.

2. adding classic PC features into the console firmware. the 360 as well as the ps3 are already on that train. playing music and videos and having access to web services (via browser -> PS3, via special apps -> X360).

option nr. 1 won't work. not even if the implementation comes "out of the box" and without many of the ps3-linux problems. there's just not enough demand...

but you will certainly see an increase in pc features on the native console firmware. my guess is that you will see an actually useful browser and possibly even an "app store" for some special web based apps.

could this be enough to replace an office PC for people who only browse the web and communicate with their PC? i guess, but a smartphone can do that as well

is it enough to replace the PC for someone who is actually doing stuff with his computer (everything except communication and media consummation)? nope!