|
|
|
|
#1
03-05-2004, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
PC's giving way to consoles?
Warren said a lot of disturbing things in his interview on GameSpy. I think that him and alot of publishers are missing a very fundamental truth. Consoles are actually becoming much more computer like. Just look at the XBox. Every new console developed is going to have networking. Etc. Etc. So why is this happening when computers do everything a console does and more? IMHO I believe that people, in general, view computers as productivity machines. Not entertainment machines. For example, you edit movies with computers, not watch them. You burn CD's in order to play them on CD players in your audio rack or car. Not listen to them on the computer. People who do these kind of things on their computer are geeks and have special knowledge so they can do these things. This is the perception of the general public. What they fail to notice however is that a majority of new products out there (in general, not just gaming consoles) incorporate computers on some level. However these products are packaged in such a way that users do nothing in order to use them, i.e. flip a switch and start using. Consoles are very much like this. They allow everyday people to, insert CD, flip a switch, and then ta-da, play game. Computers in general are not presented like this (nor should they be) and alas this is proving to be somewhat of an immediate downfall. I say immediate because as consoles become even more powerful and computer like, games will be more easily ported (or initially made) to PC and maintain acceptable PC expectations. God forbid someone open their computer case to install an update, you never know what could happen and then AAARRRRRGGGGGGGG, DISASTER FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :/ Developers however are ordered by publishers to make products that bring in money. And alas the world turns.
Mr. Spector was right about one thing. Console users are growing because the average Joe's computer awareness (not knowledge) is growing. Children today are teaching their grandparents how to use computers. Well these children are getting older but they are still human and human's in general are lazy about what they have not chosen to learn about in detail, more specifically a good majority of people in this world don't care about fixing/maintaining computers because that is not where there interests lay. So no matter how "advanced" society becomes there will always be a large poplus of people who will, "flip the switch and play". So goes the spice of life. I would predict that computer games sales will never see the surge that consoles are going through right now but will instead maintain a slow but rising rate. Again this means that money will not be viewed as "oppurtunistic" in the computer games sales arena. So what to do in the meantime? Well SDK releases will be very important but then maybe Doom III or Half-Life 2 (ThiefIII, Hopefully?) will prove my computer games sales theory wrong and we'll all (us games anyway) live happily everafter. 
|
|
#2
03-05-2004, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I forget who said it around here, might have been from the interview even, but consoles are more aimed at temporary or casual gamers. High school students grab a PS2 and play it through college, but by the time they get into the buisness world they're to busy to waste time on the games, and ditch them. The life time gamers usually use a PC, since they're willing to put the time, effort, and money into maintaining one.
Dunno if it's true, but I'd say it describes a majority of the people I've seen gaming acuratly. Not that thats going to change sales much...
|
|
#3
03-13-2004, 07:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It may be true, but not in my case. I've owned a PC a very long time now, and I am certainly willing to put the time, effort and money into mantaining one.... however, the Xbox came along, and I decided to buy one because there were so many great games coming to it that wouldn't ever be availible for the PC. I thought it would be good to save the large amounts of money I used for upgrading my computer every yeart too, so I went for it.
|
|
#4
03-15-2004, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.alienware.com/
get a pc there with performance and looks and it will impress your mates and you'll get girls flocking at your door note everything here is not true and cannot be used against me in court LOL
|
|
#6
03-15-2004, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
PCs cost way way more than a console does, and consoles have efficient, simple, semi-standard controllers for them that make simple, fun games like Mario or Zelda more fun than if you were playing on a keyboard. Truth to tell, it's also been a long time since I've seen a PC game that was anything new... they just seem to be re-making the shooter, re-making the adventure game, oh here come more racing games, another unit-based strategy game, another online RPG... just with better graphics, or some new quirk of gameplay, and you sometimes have to get new hardware to be able to get a sequel.
So consoles have some stuff going for them for sure, but I don't think they'll ever replace the PC entirely. People need to have PCs for other reasons, and hey what do you know, they play games too. That's the situation with most of my non-techie friends anyway. It's an installed base of gaming machines that most people have, the only problem is that most people don't understand their computer's capabilities and so they end up with games they can't play and refuse to pay to upgrade their system. (that's another thing consoles have over PCs - all GameCubes can play all GameCube titles.) People also tend to break their PCs by using all these trojan-laden file sharing programs, and opening emails that say "Hey I dont kno u but run this attachment its the shizzle". And then they don't know how to fix them, and they think PCs break themselves too easy, and they go and get an xbox. Oh yeah the sequels thing reminded me... sequels come out a lot more frequently on consoles. If there's a true favorite for any one system, chances are they'll remake the game (using the same engine usually) and give the gamers some more of what they want. So console gamers usually end up with a lot of variety and a lot of new stuff. PC gamers tend to find their favorite FPS, favorite strategy, etc. and just play that until it gets old. It's a better game than anything on a console, but you lack that variety. There are a bunch of console games where you just can't find anything similar on a PC too. Anyway that's the pro-console argument - I'm a pure PC gamer, don't even own a PS2, Xbox, or GameCube, last system I bought was snes, but I see the attraction.
|
|
#7
03-16-2004, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PC's giving way to consoles?
Quote:
People consider computers as a productivity-machine, mostly because they are. There are roughly 200 mil, computers out there, capable of running todays games, yet a big selling PC-game seldom reach above 2 mil sold copys, mainly becasue a lagre portion of those computers are used at work. Consoles on the other hand tend to crack that number ever so often, with less hardware in the market, mainly because they are intended to be played on and not much more. So with even less hardware, consoles provide a larger market with higher probability of moving beyond break-even for a released title.
|
|
#8
03-16-2004, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What it boils down to is, it's impossible to have both the simplest solution and the most powerful solution. The PC users trade simplicity and get power and options, the console users trade power and options and get a simple plug-and-go solution. That's why there can never be a winner in the PC vs. Console issue.
It's a difference in preference, just like preferring drip coffee or preferring cappuccino. I personally go for the cappuccino, because in going through all those extra steps and preparation, I can make an awesome drink with rich, layered flavors, and I'm willing to spend 15 minutes and $4.00 to get it. But then again lots of people just want a $1.50 cup of Folgers from the drive-through on the way to work, and can't imagine going through the steps to use an espresso machine every morning. However, the PROBLEM comes, when the industry decides that it would be more cost effective to use their alread-brewed $1.50 drip coffee to make a cappuccino instead of brewing fresh espresso, and us gourmet coffee lovers are stuck with a watered down nasty tasting hybrid instead of the rich flavor we expected. Hint Hint Ion Storm.
|
|
#9
03-21-2004, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Great analogy on the coffee thing. I agree, we are getting a $1.50 Hybrid Espresso.
On the following you are completely wrong though.... Quote:
BF1942 has been around for a long time now and has a ton of Fan Based stuff to add to it. You will never be able to say that with console. You get a console game and play it and finish it. That's it. you play the same thing over again that you just played and wait for them to sell you new content. That is your only option. Consoles are so limited in so many ways it's not funny. I can build my next system and get the next few games that come out and have as much fun if not more with new Fan Based content that will be produced from the very beginning for years longer than your console will last. So if you have a favorit Console game, that you are bored with, well your stuck. And fan based content comes out every single day, ready and waiting to be judged and loved or buiried. Console can't make that claim. Comparison.... DX2 on the box? Played and dead till you get the urge to play the same thing over again. DX2 on PC (had it been done right) would have given years of content. DX1 had a lot of content you could get and fan maps. Not a ton of stuff but still new mods and maps. DX2 and very possibly T3 will not be able to make that claim. They will be bought, played, shelved and forgotten. Without the ability to create fan based content to keep it alive. Once upon a time it was the goal of PC games to stay the best the longest. Quake 3 or UT which is better, which will out last the other, which will the fans create more content for and keep going the longest. That's what it used to be about. That's what was cool about it. Quake 3 ruled for a long time and then UT just kept getting better. Heck I still pull out Doom and pop my CD of about 1,000+ maps in and choose a few dozen and play. I never get bored by playing the same exact maps over and over and over again. A claim console can't make. The thing is, all the PC gamers that still play these games with new content all the time still buy other games. They just have more variety with the games they love to play. Those games never get old. Console can't make that claim. Halo for the PC will long out live Halo on the Box. I'm just curious who is getting ripped off. P.S. I'm not saying Consoles don't have thier place or there games. I'm just saying for games like Halo, DX, Hitman and Thief, console is not the way to go. But, with the way Laptops are going. Especialy if they get cheaper, PC gamers may not have to worry too much. Why play 4 way split screen when you can hook up 10 to 32 or more laptops to a switched hub and all have high res on an almost 17 in monitor (which is plenty big enough for most hard core gamers) in the same vicinity as the other guys your playing. How many of you have ever been to a LAN party and totaly ripped for a few hours on UT2003 or other FPS? If the sneaker got popular enough, I can tell you they would turn it into a multi player enviroment. And that would be a cool LAN party game experience with 8 to 12 other people or more all being quiet with head phones on sneaking around each other or the person sitting right across from you? WOW! Console will never be able to make that claim, EVER. Console = Limited in so many ways it's not funny. Consolers who like FPS's should really feel so Ripped Off, so Cheated. I have been seeing commercials for So-Com or whatever. How much content do you get with that? Can you get new missions for free? Oh yeah, you have to pay to play. Can you get new content with that? Hmmm, My guess is,,,,,,, no. I guess when it comes down to it. If it's ported from console and doesn't come with an SDK or the ability to mod it. Don't pay more than 20$ for it. It's simply not worth it. Thanks for reading. 
|
|
#10
03-21-2004, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a side note. If these Dev houses were really smart. They would produce these games that run on laptops better with no fuss. College students do like to game and lan parties are not that un-common. and a large majority of them all have laptops. And if they are going to have to mess with re-building thier OS and waste time tweaking stuff for hors just to get it to work, they won't even bother shelling out the money. My guess is, DX2 and T3 and probably even Halo 2 will be forgotten and buried when Doom 3 HL2 Stalker and others hit the shelves, which within a month or less will have new fan based content. It's too bad too. Fan based content will be non-existent for those other games and Eidos/IS and M$ will have made a quick buck and nothing more.
No GOTY, no Glory. Oh Well, Too bad for Spector. What a waste of real talent.
|
|
#11
03-21-2004, 04:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Who needs a fan base? The current crop of third graders will grow up, followed by the ones below them. Moms and dads will buy the consoles for the little brats, who will clammer for the latest garbage in games (yeah some are good, but face it only about 30% of the new releases are worth the CD they come on), and so it will go.
Fans who really appreciate a good game and try to promote it will be sucking wind, just like the true THIEF community is now. Who needs a fan base, when the market is self maintaining producing a new crop of suckers every year or so.
|
|
#12
03-21-2004, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hmmm... mr Spector?
Console audiences are rising: True. PC markets aren't shrinking though, are they? Sure, more and more PC titles are console games originally but who honestly cares? Besides, it's a slightly stupid way to look on things, after all 'consoles' are no more compatable with one another than a PC with an XBox. They're all seperate platforms that have seperate specs and need seperate development. PCs cost a lot to maintain: Yeah, that's partially true but not as bad as some people think. I mean consoles, yeah, they cost less at the start but the games cost more on release (Fact. Check your local game store) , you have to buy extra controllers etc, so the difference isn't so huge in the long run, especially seeing as three or so years in to a PC's or console's life, they're pretty dated, right? Or maybe it stopped working? So you have to pay to buy a new console... it'll probably cost less to upgrade your PC or replace the defective parts... And guess what else? Yeah, you have no guarantee of being able to use all the old games you purchased in the console market. Consoles are easier to develop for: Yeah, but much more limited. You need to be much more frugal with game size, controler configurations and overall graphical quality. Not to mention that most console games water down difficulty levels and so forth to suit the (On average) younger audience. Consoles are the future: Okay... right... ...You develop for the X-Box, right? Who makes the XBox? Yes, Microsoft! How much profit did they make? Not exactly the best sales figures, soundly beaten off by Sony's contender. Microsoft get most of their money from... that's right... PCs! So you're really telling us they're gonna let their main source of income 'die'? Winodws sales will be cut to 25% if games are no longer available on the PC, if not less. Besides, guess what? The XBox is built largely with PC hand-me-down hardware. In conclusion, Warren... You are a freakin' moron. Last edited by Guineapiggy; 03-21-2004 at 05:15 PM.
|
|
#13
03-21-2004, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
03-23-2004, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quoted from some guy... "however, the Xbox came along, and I decided to buy one because there were so many great games coming to it that wouldn't ever be availible for the PC."
I wouldn't call one game "so many", and Halo is out for PC. Someone said something about console games running more smoothly than PC. I disagree, there are plenty of console games that crunch and churn where a PC would keep on going smoothly. Most games now can be easily configured to run well on even older PCs. Though I do have to say that console games are less buggy which is probably because the game doesn't have to be compatible with a bunch of other stuff. One of my big arguments for PC is that there are no 'console wars'. If it's out for PC it's out for PC... and if it's out on a console and everyone likes it it will prolly be out for PC too. This is probably mostly due the the deathgrip Windows has on the PC market and may change if anyone steps up to oppose MS. Fortunately there will be many hackers who love porting stuff over to other OS's though  I really have to agree with the comment about replayability and modding with PCs. I might still play Metal Gear S:SOL if it was on PC. Why go out and buy a bunch of VR missions which cost as much as the original game when I can make my own and get other peoples' for free. That game could have some huge survivability on PC. And the same goes for Thief III. On Xbox ppl will buy it, beat it in 1 day (console games are always super short now) and then stash it somewhere. No multiplayer, no modding, why play it again? Ppl will do with Thief III what I did with Tenchu 3, rent it for the weekend at Blockbuster, beat it, and never see it again. Ion Storm will be giving a lot of money to Blockbuster, and not a lot for themselves. And if they don't make money, they don't make Thief 4. Last edited by Bertuccio; 03-23-2004 at 12:09 PM.
|
|
#15
03-24-2004, 04:25 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Jeeeze... there seems to be a lot of closemindedness out there. First, I like my games on the PC... mostly, but you fail to see the potential of the consoles and some of you seem to miss the problem Mr Spector is struggling with.
The Thief-series was a modest hit when they came, the game have great fans, but not too many of them. Today the PC-market is the significantly smaller market compared to consoles. So Spector could opt for a true PC-game with a small fanbase in a small market OR he could try to increase his chance of going beyond break-even via the console. To make games custom for laptops is really a far fetched idea, that market is even smaller than the PC. Ok, this is not just for Guineapiggy, but he sums up the things I would like to adress. Quote:
Quote:
Add this: the lifespan for a console is 5 years(!), the PC has a recycle-rate of 18 months (Moores law). I wonder why parents go for consoles. Quote:
Quote:
By the way, the average gamer is 28 years old. I guess the sport-games are a big reason. Quote:
Microsoft openly declared that they would not go break even on their hardware until X-Box2. Despite that they see such great potential in the market and willingly threw away 4billion dollars in just marketing expences for a product they did not see a positive income in for over five years. Besides, guess what? Neither Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo make any considerable money on their hardware. It is the games that bring in the big cash. As you noticed, console-games cost a bit more than PC-games. Its becasue the hardwaremanufacturer to the console takes a licenced fee for every sold title to their console. And thats where the real money lies. Quote:
|
|
#16
03-24-2004, 06:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
18 months to five years? Where exactly do your figures come from, because they sound a good few miles off what I've seen, or what common sense dictates.
As for the limitations being a blessing, care to provide a reason for that? Backwards compatability: The PS2 is the only example. Quote:
|
|
#17
03-24-2004, 06:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
... trying to get out. 
__________________
http://blizzard.com/images/war3/item...of-shadows.gifLoyalty above all else... except honor. I went to the Cradle and all I got was this stupid t-shirt. Hey, is this blood?
|
|
#18
03-24-2004, 06:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Consoles on the other hand, are released with roughly 5 year intervals. Look at the PSone at 1995 and PS2 at 2000 as an example. Quote:
For an example see Richard Rouseīs book "Game Design: Theory & Practice" on controls and input. In short, there is a benefit from few buttons in a controller as opposed to a keyboard, in order to simplify. Sure, games like IL Sturmovik dont play well on consoles, but thats not really the point here. Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#19
03-24-2004, 06:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think we're getting at something that's been ponging around in my skull for a bit. They may run the same games but they're entirely separate things. And some gamers may have both but they're completely separate markets.
The fact the PC game developers are flocking to the console market in droves because there's more profit in it is where I focus. The markets are so different that they should just scrap the PC market and develop for the console. A lot cleaner too. KISS- Keep It Simple, Stupid. If there is a market for PC games developers will surface to deal with it. Demand and supply. That said, my position may be a little different. Console gamers may not mind, perhaps because they mostly don't know any different never having played games on their PC's, having to kill the TV so they can play their games. I do. There are other people here who still want to watch TV while I'm gaming. And they may not mind having separate spaces for PC's, TV's, and consoles. I do. We've invested a lot in making our PC and TV spaces just so and I don't want to mess that up. Plus my PC space is where I planned on playing the games. Because when I was doing that planning it looked like that's where the games would be. I don't want another space for console(s). In fact, I'm in the process now of merging the TV and PC spaces into one. As soon as I get all the TV on my PC stuff worked out. We watched a movie on TV last night that I was playing on my PC that I recorded on my PC. Plus the PC's got a DVD drive that I can play movies out to the TV. Ergo, before too long this will all be consolidated back into a single space. Wherefore the console then? When you remove the console from the PC's and TV's your market is just kids. A pretty big market maybe but not very worldy. I hope we can still get some "Thinking Man" games then. Last edited by Old Man; 03-24-2004 at 07:00 AM.
|
|
#20
03-24-2004, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Thief-series was a modest hit when they came, the game have great fans, but not too many of them"
There are quite a lot of fans, certainly enough to make a profit on Thief III without messing up gameplay so that it appeals to a bigger audience. This mentality implies several things. One is that "cult" games have no place, that all games must appeal to everyone. Well I think that is outright stupid. Why can't I play my game, and other ppl play their games? I don't like GTA3. I don't go around asking ppl to change it and make it appeal to an even bigger audience, because that would ruin the game for the people that like GTA how it is. And I think it is equally unfair to change cult games to appeal to a bigger audience because it robs the cult fans of their games. Another, ppl apparently think Thief/Thief 2 did not become popular because the gameplay did not appeal to everyone. I personally think most ppl would like the game just how it is, and the reason it didn't get big is that it had very little advertising and bad graphics. If they were to take Thief and give it the graphics and hype that Thief 3 is getting it would easily turn a very large profit and fan base. I think they could easily turn a profit based on Thief's current fans, and trying to make it appeal to a bigger audience is simply a grab for more money. (Or that the creators misconstrued the relatively small fan-base as an indication that they did something wrong with the game, which is not true) "This is the well known "Moores law", that dictates processor power is doubled every 18 months. This theory has stayed true since the 1960-ies." While it is true that processor speeds double every 18 months it may not be true that most ppl buy a new computer that often. Since I was 12 there have been 4 PCs in my family. I am 22 now, that's an average of 30 months per comp. Also, all of these computers are still around, we just put them to different uses. I can't think of anyone I know who buys a new comp every 18 months. Include the fact that processor speeds are so outrageously high that increasing them has no effect on the grand majority of things you can do with your computer and Moore's Law falls out of the picture. Microsoft eats money on the X-Box due to inefficiency in making it that other companies avoid. And they throw tons of money into advertising not because they see great potential but because they are trying to hype their way into the market. That may construed as standard anti-MS bias, and that is probably partly true, but read the articles and you'll find they plainly say it. Last edited by Bertuccio; 03-24-2004 at 06:36 PM.
|
|
#21
03-24-2004, 07:08 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Second, you just compared a game-series (GTA) that has sold over 25 million copies to a series (Thief) that has yet to breach the 2 million mark. So I guess there is no need to change GTA to make it appeal to a bigger audience, its as big as they come. Third, this is not about "change Thief III" so it will be appriciated by a bigger audience. This is about the game going to console as well as PC to reach a wider audience. I have not yet seen the "big" changes for Thief III in live action so I dont want to make comments on them wheter they are a result of console-conversion or if they are a natural development of the game itself. I also dont know if any limitations from the console will spill over to the PC, so Ill save that for later as well. Fourth I also belive that Thief/Thief2 would have sold better with more advertising, but thats speculation. However, I dont think it could be a game of mass appeal like GTA. Quote:
Quote:
Sure, you do not buy a new computer every 18 months. But every 18 months new generation computers are being sold. So technology pushes harder with the PC compared to the console, and that affects the games too. To further illustrate: I bought my latest computer one year before I bought my PS2. It was several years ago when I could no longer play the latest games on my PC, but today I can still play the latest games on the PS2. See where Im aiming at? Quote:
Quote:
Although the X-box have had less success than Microsoft had hopes for, they DID say that they did not expect any profits from their first generation of consoles.
|
|
#22
03-24-2004, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think game companies have done very well with making games able to run on a processor even if that processor is two years old. Consider this: that at any given moment, if your processor is the part of your system too slow to play a game, a new processor need only come from the midrange price point, probably a mere $60 to $80. That processor might not be a good investment in the future, but that's not the point, it would play the games that you can't play now. Microsoft eats money on the XBOX because they knew they needed to provide an enormously great game console for anybody to want to buy it or make games for it. They were the underdog, nonexistant not only in the console system market but nearly nonexistant (had only a few, poor quality titles) in the game software market. They, like many console system manufacturers, designed the XBOX so that it cost way more to produce than they could sell it for. The result is that the games that come out for it are very, very attractive compared to the other systems. That happens for two reasons: number one, the games can have much better graphics than if they made a profit, assuming they won't sell any boxes if they cost too much. Number two, game developers will find the xbox attractive because it is nice and fast, and will make more games for it without Microsoft having to "convince" them to do so. Where Microsoft, Nintendo, etc. DO make money is in licensing the rights to make games for it. Nintendo, for example, used to get a kickback from any company who released a game for the NES or SNES. They owned a technology without which a cartridge could not interface with the console. To develop and release a cartridge game you had to pay Nintendo money. That's where the money is. You know, I thought that the Thief series had quite a large audience? Almost everyone into PC gaming has heard of it, most who've heard of it have played it, it was on the store shelves at Best Buy and all the major software retailers. The creating company went under, (*sniff* we love you Looking Glass) but I don't think that was for lack of sales, I think it happened more for other reasons. I couldn't tell you what though. There is merit in the "limitations breeds creativity" argument. All you have to do is look at console games to see it. Those things are really, really creative. I think a lot of that stems from the fact that the console game makers have more freedom though. They market to a much larger group of people, and that group of people has lower expectations in terms of really ultra-cutting-edge graphics, and is more open to what the gameplay would be like. What would you say if UT2004 came out, and you found out there was a between-levels racing game a-la Mario Kart, or found out it had a monetary system and you had to buy your weapons? You'd scream, "That's not Unreal Tournament!! You maniacs, you blew it up!!" and you'd hate it. Console game makers can do anything they want. Insert gambling elements into a racing game? Cool, it's Mario Kart! Insert racing elements into a jump-and-bonk game? Hey you get some of the most fun levels in Mario 64! Make a game where nothing ever happens and nobody ever dies, and all you do is collect cute little creatures and have cockfights with them? You get Pokemon. Nothing like that happens for PC games. Not to say we don't get some interesting combos, but PC gamers fully expect a shooter genre game to be almost completely like every other shooter, and will tolerate only a little bit of variation. Look at Thief 1 - they were afraid of how people would take the whole sneaking element thing, so they made almost the entire second half of the game more combat-oriented with all the fire demons and zombies and alien mantis-men, and returned to sneaking with Thief 2 because the reaction was good.
|
|
#23
03-24-2004, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The point with processor power is that if you buy smart, it takes very little investment to keep yourself up to date for games. Note that buying Dell, or buying Gateway 2000, is not buying smart. They try to make sure you have to upgrade again ASAP. You also don't have to upgrade your processor every 18 months. A brand new processor right now would probably keep playing games well for a couple years, and that has almost always been the case ever since 3D graphics cards came out. Maybe not if you buy a really cheap processor, but if you do that, you're not planning for the future much, and you're definitely not buying smart. You can play most modern games pretty well on an Athlon XP 1800 or a P4 1.8. Those processors are pretty old. And there's not much saying that they'll be obsolete for games anytime soon.
|
|
#24
03-24-2004, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"As interesting as it might be, Photoshop requires much more processing power than games do. Ever tried to draw an airbrush stroke on a slow system? Didn't look too nice did it?" -Grafixmonkey
Thanks for saying that. The amount of processing power that games require pales in comparison to things like 3Ds Max or any graphics development program. "Spector said that the Thief-series was only a modest hit, barely good enough to justify a sequel." -Ubermorse All the more reason to actually listen to the original fan base who are a major reason for Thief III existing. It's considered a 'modest hit' by everyone else, but we love it. "Everything about GTA3" The point is not the difference in sales. I could pick any game that I don't like and say that it's unfair to change it to suit my tastes because it ruins the game for others. You are right that this is not meant to be in this thread though. "number one, the games can have much better graphics" "and that group of people has lower expectations in terms of really ultra-cutting-edge graphics" -Grafixmonkey These two statements contradict. If console gamers don't expect high power graphics then why are gaming companies (according t o you) falling at Microsoft's feet to develop on their high-powered system. I disagree with the first statement, of all the games I've seen for Xbox the graphics are worse than other systems. And of the games I've played I've found them choppier than other systems. Excepting Halo which looks fabulous, but was originally developed for Macs, on Macs by Maccers. I have no idea how it ended up on Xbox or PC. "Almost everyone into PC gaming has heard of [Thief], most who've heard of it have played it, it was on the store shelves at Best Buy and all the major software retailers." -Grafixmonkey I agree, I think that Thief is now a widely known sleeper and the hype created by Thief/Thief 2 is more than enough to carry a profit for 3 without 'adjusting' it to fit a larger audience. "It was several years ago when I could no longer play the latest games on my PC, but today I can still play the latest games on the PS2. See where Im aiming at? " -Ubermorse No I don't. If I wanted to I could get out my previous computer and play the grand majority of games that are out now that I played before, I will just need to lower graphics somewhat. And in something near 2 years, when this computer does not handle new games quite as well as it used to, it will be much cheaper for me to buy a $50 video card than the newest console which will be at dead least $100, and prolly $200. I think if after two years you can't run games on your comp then you got a bum comp in the first place.
|
|
#25
03-24-2004, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Games can have better graphics if Microsoft loses money, because Microsoft put a processor and graphics system into the XBOX that costs more money than people are willing to pay for a console game system. That way, MS loses money selling consoles, but the games can look better relative to competition - not to say that developers actually manage to get that to happen though, they seem obsessed with using pixel shaders and have forgotten the older methods that still produced good results. If the xbox has a better graphics capability, developers will want to program their game for it, because they can go further towards the look that they want without running into hardware limitations. And, console gamers DO have a lower expectation towards graphics than a PC gamer has. I personally would prefer gameplay, but the typical PC gamer will complain to no end if a new release doesn't have real-time shadows, and ground cover outdoors, and pixel shader bump mapping, realistic skin tones, dynamic lighting, specular lighting, lip-sync animation, and etc. and etc. technology, and still play at 1280x1024 at 100fps. A console gamer has to put up with 720x480, max resolution, the 29.95 Hz refresh rate inherent in NTSC, and a relatively blurry and flickery screen. Halo on a console can't even be compared, graphically, with Halo on a PC, it looks so much better. On the xbox the ground cover is sparse at best, if even present. There are very few particle systems, like dirt and chunks of grass flying into the air if a grenade explodes on a dirt floor. It has bump and specular, but not any of that other stuff. And the graphics in Halo get choppy at times on the xbox. And console gamers love it, and think the graphics are oh so sweet, but even UT2004 beats the living crap out of Halo graphics (even PC Halo graphics) and PC gamers say it only looks mediocre, and they're disappointed. But the xbox still has better graphics capability than other consoles. The point is that console gamers care less about graphics and more about the game, and that gives game developers the freedom to persue a fun game even if it means they spend less time on graphics. And from what I've heard, Microsoft saw Halo being developed, and realized that Halo would be the perfect flagship game to use to sell their systems. And it worked, I know many, many people who bought their XBOX just to play Halo, and some who have played nothing but Halo (and the Fusion Frenzy demo) on their xbox. Quote:
The number of new games being released today that would be able to play as fast as intended on a 3-year-old system is very small, but some still come out. Nothing I would personally buy, but that happens because PC users do keep themselves up to date. If there was a reasonably large population of gamers who had older systems and wouldn't upgrade even if it meant not being able to play games, they would release games using older technology. And I bet when the Playstation 3 comes out, there will be far fewer Playstation 2 games being released, and I bet you'll go right out and buy a playstation 3, just like PC users get new graphics cards. Last edited by grafixmonkey; 03-24-2004 at 10:57 PM.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
