Network now...FEATURE
In Defense of Consoles
There's an aging argument that alleges "PC gaming is dying."
But there have been pockets of resistance in the PC gaming community, with one of the platform's most outspoken proponents, WildTangent chair Alex St. John, claiming the opposite: that console gaming is doomed and the more flexible, more connected PC will continue on.
He reiterated this argument at a recent panel discussion at BMO Capital Markets' Interactive Entertainment Conference in New York last week.
"I think you're looking at the last generation of consoles," claimed St. John. "I don't think Sony or Microsoft is going to make another console. The problem is that great graphics, which is what used to differentiate a console, are a commodity. Everybody's got it. You can't buy a PC that doesn't have Xbox or Nintendo-quality graphics anymore."
Ken Ripley, EVP of sales for in-game ad firm IGA Worldwide, was also on that panel. He contacted Edge following our report to further express his thoughts.
"[We won't see] the death of anything. I'm not suggesting it's the death of the PC. It's silly to think that it's the death of the console, though," he said in a phone interview.
St. John's WildTangent is a PC-centric online company specializing in more casual gameplay experiences. IGA Worldwide supplies ads to both console and PC games.
Console detractors make the argument that online gaming is the future, and a much higher percentage of PCs are connected to the Internet. Everything from dynamic advertising, digital distribution and the most effective anti-piracy measures require an online connection.
But Ripley believes that the connection rate of consoles is larger than PC advocates would like to admit, adding that consoles and PCs share so many similarities today that it's difficult to draw boundaries.
"What I'm not sure about is why there is a distinction being made between the PC and the console here, when the console is wi-fi and broadband-enabled, and consoles have networks to do the exact same thing that these guys are talking about, and it's seamless, simple, not buggy and it works."
Lars Buttler, CEO of online PC and console developer/publisher Trion World Networks projected during last week's panel that eventually, living room gaming would be done not through specific boxes like we have today, but through more conventional "devices" connected to servers.
Panelists also speculated about when televisions themselves would house processing units and broadband capabilities for a truly plug-and-play gaming experience.
But Ripley, who previously served as an exec with TiVo and Discovery Networks, said he'd rather live in the here and now, and go where the audience wants to be when they want to go there.
He argued, "What I'm hearing on panels like that is, 'It's just a matter of time before blah blah blah.' But the point is that today we've got virtually perfect products with really, really high-end graphics--granted, not ultra high-end like a PC--but they have huge amounts of processing power."
He also said that standardized plug-and-play technology will remain elusive for years to come, and pointed to the example of cable TV.
"For I don't know how many years, over 10 years now, the consumer electronics industry has been saying that they're going to come up with a plug-and-play standard where you won't have to use your cable box anymore. ... They still don't have it. It's still not doable. You'll never see it.
"So the idea that the consumer electronics industry and all the different players there are going to come up with a standard and be able to implement it, I think is as far off now as it probably was 10 years ago."
Ripley ultimately returned to the argument that most console proponents hold, which is that console gaming is generally more accessible to the "middle of the market" than enthusiast PC gaming.
"The common person who isn't a really proficient computer expert just wants to flip on a switch and have it play and have it be great."
However, he's not calling for the death of PC gaming or consoles, as he stated that "connectivity is connectivity" regardless of the platform. "There's no reason they can't continue to coexist, and they will."
i honestly dont see any form of game truly dying. i mean like it was mentioned above PC gaming has been "dying" for 10 years or more. I still get pc versions of the games, mainly because i can play plenty of them on my laptop while im on lunch at work. besides, I am still waiting for a really kick ass MMORPG for the consoles. I think even Star Wars the old republic is going to be pc only. I think that is still the market that the pc "owns" for lack of a better term. besides the point that the PS3 and 360 are basically a computer now anyway, with custom OS's
Like it or not PC Gaming is dying. It has been for a fair while now. It is true that the console experience (at least initially) always sets itself apart on graphics. It is also true that online gaming is (not the future but) a major component of game play, it makes it communal after all.
However, graphics get caught up on and the PC surpasses. This must be a shock to all the console developers ... it's only been happening since the birth of consoles. And it would appear to me that the three major console systems have decent online play support. Live (on the Xbox) is probably superior to what PC offers, although in truth PC online gamers are a little more skilled (by necessity) to broker games so although PCs are superior there is an issue of casual gamers getting to the party. Since we are pointing out the console flaws, lets include the PC ones.
One way or the other though, consoles have the advantage that. They power on fast. They are less prone to viruses and so forth (i'm sure that's coming given the install base). They are less of a problem with regards to piracy (RROD was a great ploy to prevent mod chipping ... who will void their warranty when the consoles are dropping like flies? [no i don't believe it's a conspiracy, but i do like the theory]). And some are genuinely more immersive. The Wii in particular (oh and it's graphics were not that great at launch).
PCs as a whole aren't going away, and as a result people will have those hunks of hardware and will use them to play games. And great games will come out. The dying is not about death, the dying is about decline. The situation is more complex than PC anyway, the different OS's are their own little islands, and no one is developing for Linux or Mac. EA's DRM masterpiece Spore and other efforts barely count, though i like the game as a diversion ... a casual game ... it won't ever get the attention of say Fallout 3, but it's still good to have there when i'm traveling for work and don't have my PC (Vista and Linux) or my consoles (360 and Wii).
But PC gaming death is largely brought on by the big publishers like EA with their constant anti piracy drm crap. Spore, cute yes, but not my kind of game. If it was on console i could have traded (and would have traded) it. Like i said it's nice, but at the price i could have bought other casual games which (granted) are less clever, but just as good a time killer.
And besides, who cares? Diversity has always been the key to survival, if a company puts it all on PC, odds are they will decline in the long run...
The things is a console is so easy for gaming, you put your game in you play (although installing games seems all the rage these days) but yeah I have had almost no issues at all with gaming on a console, compared to pc which I have more horror stories then I would have liked.
PC gaming also always had the stigma of the next best thing. Games look pretty on pcs sure but most people still don't have pcs that can play Crysis, which has been out for how long? Consoles are here and will probably stay for a very long time.
I think crysis is a bad exampe. I have a year and a half old laptop that will play farcry 2 and fallout 3, but not crysis, and frankly fallout 3 and farcry 2 look pretty damn good also. I had the same problem on my desktop a few years ago, quake 4 and half life 2 ran awesome, doom 3 ran horribly, the frist 2 games looked just as good but ran smoother, i think some games coding just isnt refined all the way when they are released. A good example is...jeeze i cant remember the name but it was a street racing game. the graphics werent even good and it ran badly, after 4 200mb patches the game ran fine.
I think the real issue here is not PC upgrades vs no upgrades on consoles. The real issue here is that PCs are not practical.
With a console I can seat in the coach with the controller in my hands and enjoy the game. With a PC, there is the keyboard and the mouse, so I need a desk for it. And who want's to play at the desk? Only kids.
Besides PCs are buggy, get virus, Windows sucks, etc.
For me PC gaming is totally dead.
i agree with the ease of playability and setup, but with a blue toothe keyboard and mouse you can play from across the room, my gaming rig is sitting right next to my 360. and also say what you want about windows (hey dont like it fine.) but with a 19.99 adaptor you can use your 360 controllers on your pc for games, thats how i played fallout 3, and it worked pretty good. and lets not forget that a mere 5 or 6 years ago the PS2 and original XBOX didnt have wireless controllers and really only had maybe 6 ft of cord standard. I personally like playing certain styles of games on the consoles and others on the pc. MMORPGs for example, i like them on the pc, sports games and racing games, i pretty much like on the consoles. games like first person shooters I can play on either. RTS games though i still like on the PC i just think the mouse is more suited for them. of course we'll have to see how endwars voice commands pan out, but for now i would rather play command and conquer on the pc.
I don't think some of the commentators are making a like for like comparison. I can't argue the point regarding the PC upgrade cycle, you could upgrade every six months to keep ahead of the curve, but you don't have to.
I assume by the fact your commenting in here using coherent English without typo's, your sat at a PC, not squinting at the the TV screen from your couch or fumbling trying to type on a game pad. Sure, everyone has a PC nowadays, you'd probable have one even if you didn't game. Now to make an average PC capable of gaming you would probably need a new video card and RAM. I can't vouch for the states, but in the UK mid - high end upgrades for these items would set you back about the same or probably less than a PS3. I was surprised to read on Kotaku the other day, the "average" console owner only owns around 6 or 7 games. Again, in the UK, you pay around a £10 premium for a console game over it's PC equivalent, so there's an additional £60. If you console of choice is Xbox, then you need to pay the lovely M$ online gaming tax for the honour of allowing your friend to host a a game of Halo 3 you both own. So the real total cost of ownership is a fair bit higher than the ticket price.
Compatibility is much less of an issue than it was from the 98 - XP upgrade, but in 2001 when you bought a PS game, it couldn't be patched, so had to have gone "gold" (in the old meaning of the term) before it could be released, rather than the rolling Beta's that seem to released for the consoles currently, for problems/features to be patched later. It would seem that whilst PC issues are decreasing, Consoles are getting worse.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some PC gaming fanboy (mac fanboy if anything), I own a mid spec gaming PC which is over 12 months old and has played the latest batch of releases quite hapily (Far Cry 2, Crysis Warhead included), whilst at the same time pulled my hair out over Pro Evo debacles of the last 2 years, and the seemingly endless wait for AAA titles to land on PS3.
The logical conclusion for the evolution of consoles is a standard that means any game will run on any machine (probably streaming from the cloud) and the only thing that will differentiate Sony from Nintendo from MS will be features. Surely this platform already exists in the form of a PC?
Here is all my Family knows:
We have 8 computers and 1 laptop. Only 3 computers are out, and really only one gets used. The other 5 are upgraded as far as they can go but still useless so they sit in a closet.
I was a hard core PC Gamer, but I can't afford it anymore. Even a High End PC can run you $2000.00 to $5000.00 dollars, and then in 6 months to a year your opening it up and upgrading. That is why PC's have doors on them that swing open and consoles do not. You always need more Ram, a new Video Card, a new power supply, new processor, and then 6 months go by and your out of luck. There is an old saying that a friend of mine who works in the computer industry says is their company motto, "Never make anything that is permanent always make something that has to be replaced." Great for the companies that make computers, ram, video cards, mobo's, power supplies, and processors. This is great for people who have unlimited income, but for the rest of the real world, you can only do this so many times before the bank runs dry.
We are also so tired of compatibility issues with the PC. You install a game and it has issues with Vista, XP, Drivers, Virus Software or any other number of issues. This requires emailing Tech or talking to Tech and getting your PC set up just the right way to run it, but that configuration only works with that one game, the next game will have you re-configuring your PC in whole other way. I have yet to drop a game in my Wii, 360, or PS3 and have any issues.
My family is done with PC Gaming, and the results are very noticeable. The stress in playing a game is gone, just drop and play...no calling Tech support, no spending an hour configuring your system to run that one game. Our wallet is thicker with money, no more going out and buying $500.00 video cards, or ram, or any other myriad of things that a new game may require, now we just drop that new game in and it plays.
Are there draw backs to playing only on consoles, sure. Frame rate, Graphics, and Some Games not available on consoles, especially great games like WOW, and Diablo and a ton of MMORPG's. We are willing to sacrifice though just to have more money to buy more games and no stress in playing those games because we no longer have to Tweak or Upgrade components, and knowing that the console we have will work for about 5 years before needing another one, unlike the PC which you may need to get a new one in less then 6 months if you can't upgrade a component.
Simply put it is quite a bit easier in this economy to shell out $400.00 for a console and have a huge list of games that will already play on it no problems, then to spend $3000.00 on a gaming PC that might not work right out of the box with the latest game.
Allow a real browser, an self configuring full email client (gamertag@sonyms.com) and an office package onto any console and most people would not need their PC anymore. If anything, the consoles are held back by the jealousy with which Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo guard and manage the internet connectivity of their community.
Preconfigured messaging does not work cross platform, the 360 does not even have a bad browser like the others and just for the sake of using a controller the user interfaces are counterintuitive to what people are used to from their regular computer interaction at work.
It's true, the console as the gaming rig of your living room really has to die. It has to make way for something that is more capable of doing what people do on their PC. Which isn't black magic, it's a few tools.
"The common person who isn't a really proficient computer expert just wants to flip on a switch and have it play and have it be great."
Sums up the situation pretty well.
However, I'm not convinced why should Sony or MS make a next next-gen console in years. The 360 and the PS3 are doing fine, with decent market saturation and enough horsepower to make the above-mentioned common person happy. They might make a 360 / PS3 Lite or Slim along the road (that and software updates), but apart from cosmetics there wouldn't be any big generation shift for many years (meaning 4-5 years). My two cents.
I actually hope that consoles' longevity will be stretched a bit more. Currently, it seems that only a handful of games are actually pushing the machines forward - and I honestly believe that all consoles (including the Wii) have not lived up to their most optimal potential. Yes, there are great games for either three... but what about pushing them beyond what people imagined they could do?
I'd guess more like 2-3 years for the next box. Next fall will be Halo Recon, following fall will be Gears 3, following that will be the announcement of the next box coming out the fall of 2011 with Halo 4 being a launch title. Think about the craziness of Halo, then throw in a launch coinciding with the game arguably bigger than anything else. It'll be madness. I also think the next xbox will have full retail games available in both physical and digital forms as standard. It'll launch with all units have a terabyte HDD or bigger as an option. BluRay disc drive for storage purposes only when it comes to gaming (all units would run games right off the HDD as mandatory). It'll also function as a BluRay movie player, although that would be second to its more robust movie download (see: purchase not just rent) service. Just a couple of guesses, and my two cents.