PC: The Largest Threat to Next Gen Consoles (according to Gametrailers)
- Thread starter EternalTruth
- Start date
SolarPowered
Member
You mean favorite or follow. I just checked the page only to see it's already been greenlighted. :O
Now we play the waiting game.
HeroesInAHalfShell
Neo Member
If the Steam Box is everything it's shaping up to be, and the controller works as well as expected, I'd say it's a serious competitor. But then again, for most gamers it will likely end up being a companion device regardless.
Haha, I was about to post that it has already been approved. Greenlight is working! Sort of!
They aren't doing that strategy anymore. They are now going to put off the shelf mid-tier components into their systems, and the production costs of Blu Ray has dropped significantly.
I believe Microsoft is actually selling the XB1 at a small profit margin, while Sony is taking a small loss. Correct me if I am wrong here.
Polar opposite of the start of last gen. Where PC was playing catch up in power and both consoles were sold at a loss.
Come on, I'm a huge PC gamer and I see plenty of awesome exclusives in Sony's library. In fact, I'm going out to pick up a PS3 this Black Friday.
Last of Us and Demon Souls, here I come.
Its ironic that I am jumping into the current generation after the subsequent generation has already launched.
MutonCommander
Banned
Ok, but it's going to be a long post!
Before Valve, PC gaming was quite fragmented and often an enormous hassle. Valve took on a mission and actually managed to greatly simplify the PC gaming experience through the use of a unified DRM standard (Steamworks) and a full-fledged social and distribution platform. Nowadays one could easily argue that Steam is at least as good, if not even better than Sony's, Microsoft's and Nintendo's online platforms. PC gaming is much simpler to get into these days. Steam Machines are the next logical step in that same mission of making PC gaming accessible to the masses.
The last barriers for PC gaming's mass adoption are the issues of control, living room presence, hardware complexity and price. Valve are systematically adressing all of these issues with the Steam Controller, SteamOS/Steam Big Picture and Steam Machines respectively. They are once again trying to steer PC gaming towards a more unified, platform-agnostic future that will bring the whole experience much closer to the console standard of simplicity.
A SteamOS-powered SteamMachine running Steam in Big Picture Mode would be just as easy to use, just as secure and idiot-proof as a game console, with the added bonuses of a world-class distribution and social platform supporting it and with all of PC gaming's advantages. If I was an exec at Sony or Microsoft, the thought of an easy-to-use living room PC running Steam would keep me up at night.
The final issues are developer support and price. If Valve manage to convince publishers to support them en masse and if they can come up with a $300 Steam Machine that can still play next-gen games, consoles will be on their last legs.
H_Prestige
Banned
The ps3/360 alone sold more than the ps2/xbox in the same timeframe. Even if you completely take out the Wii, the console market clearly grew.
And you're right, the high end PC market depends on consoles. Those AAA games at 1080p/60fps people boast about in the screenshot thread wouldn't even exist if the consoles weren't around to make back the budget.
MutonCommander
Banned
PC gaming had multiple multi-million sellers way,way before today's console-led gaming market. So he's quite wrong.
Ok, but it's going to be a long post!
Before Valve, PC gaming was quite fragmented and often an enormous hassle. Valve took on a mission and actually managed to greatly simplify the PC gaming experience through the use of a unified DRM standard (Steamworks) and a full-fledged social and distribution platform. Nowadays one could easily argue that Steam is at least as good, if not even better than Sony's, Microsoft's and Nintendo's online platforms. PC gaming is much simpler to get into these days. Steam Machines are the next logical step in that same mission of making PC gaming accessible to the masses.
The last barriers for PC gaming's mass adoption are the issues of control, living room presence, hardware complexity and price. Valve are systematically adressing all of these issues with the Steam Controller, SteamOS/Steam Big Picture and Steam Machines respectively. They are once again trying to steer PC gaming towards a more unified, platform-agnostic future that will bring the whole experience much closer to the console standard of simplicity.
A SteamOS-powered SteamMachine running Steam in Big Picture Mode would be just as easy to use, just as secure and idiot-proof as a game console, with the added bonuses of a world-class distribution and social platform supporting it and with all of PC gaming's advantages. If I was an exec at Sony or Microsoft, the thought of an easy-to-use living room PC running Steam would keep me up at night.
The final issues are developer support and price. If Valve manage to convince publishers to support them en masse and if they can come up with a $300 Steam Machine that can still play next-gen games, consoles will be on their last legs.
But how would that "kill" consoles? Consoles would still have plenty of exclusive games you would never see on the "Steambox". I still don't see how a Valve "console" would somehow make Sony, MS or Nintendo's consoles irrelevant. The most probable thing that could happen is that now we get another competitor in the console space, but that's pretty much it.
it's not really about PC having its own exclusives. It's about showing that there's no reason for AAA games not to be on PC, except for the fact that consoles don't want the competition and tie down the major properties with exclusivity.
MutonCommander
Banned
I liken it to the rise of Android in the mobile space. Solid platform + multiple manufacturers + multiple price points = domination. Consoles will not disappear overnight of course.They are in danger of being marginalized though.
The whole idea is about as laughable as mobile gaming replacing hardcore games. The 99c games are good on mobiles for a reason, people are not going to buy dedicated boxes to play them.
Yes.Right from the start of the generation? I've seen a graph floating around here that shows the power of PC and consoles that shows that PC has always been behind at the start, for a while, and then moving on way ahead before the generation ends. I'll try finding it.
Edit: It was a graph by salty nvidia...
Because the power budgets for desktop GPUs has tripled since and consoles cant have the same luxury.
People also forget that by the time PS3 launched, GPU in the PC space (G80) was more than twice as powerful.
Angry Puppy
Member
Well PC is the objectively superior platform in terms of performance and multiplats.
But as long as great console exclusives remain, there will always be a console base.
But as long as great console exclusives remain, there will always be a console base.
SolarPowered
Member
You are right about the PC being a companion device but your FOV needs to be cranked up a bit on the whole controller and box thing. Valve didn't need a box or controller to deal serious blows to Microsoft's XBLA for example. Simple policies changed things enough that MS went from having THE premier downloadable service to touting themselves the minecraft machine because they could barely hang on to 3 month exclusivity for their releases anymore. Valve didn't need a box to make a bigger game than anything consoles have ever seen before in dota (yeah, I think it may even be bigger than Nintendo properties and I don't like saying that as a lapsed Nintendo fan heh). They certainly don't need a box to approve dozens of indie games a month (as ghst said a few posts above) and make inroads with Japanese devs on the downloadable front.
I think it gets a lot more interesting when we see how powerful simple software and policy changes can be.
Evolution before our very eyes.
You think consoles "sold way more" this gen than they did in the PS2 gen even without the Wii? Check those numbers again and it's a lot closer than you think. The way you worded it implied the Wii, PS3 and 360 together. What are we looking at without the Wii? 160 million versus last gen's 175ish (150+24) million? It's not very healthy without a healthy Nintendo. Iwata needs to get his shit in order. From a numbers perspective the console industry doesn't look very good when Nintendo is caught with their pants down.
At least we agree on the whole "AAA" thing and the PC/Console circle of life.
Edit: Ah, dat "timeframe". I guess you've got your point there. How much had the PS2 sold when next gen started? (Xbox 360 launch?)
Red Mage
Member
Pretty much. I don't even get the apparent obsession some PC gamers have with consoles. I mean, I don't care for PC gaming, but I've never felt ill will towards it. It's like Star Trek and Star War fans wanting the other series to bomb. We can have both.
MutonCommander
Banned
It's not a matter of ill will, although there's surely enough of that. It's just a discussion on the future of gaming. Valve managed to handily beat both Microsoft and Sony in the online games distribution battlefield while being tied to a rather complicated and expensive platform and with much less resources at their disposal. Imagine what kind of a juggernaut Steam could become if it's available on a range of beautiful, easy to use and cheap living room PCs.
John Carmack sees it evolving into it's own platform it seems, or at least a custom platform build on Android.
http://www.techradar.com/news/gamin...oid-powered-oculus-rift-for-consumers-1191057
GravityMan
Member
PCs are not a serious threat to next-gen consoles.
Consoles are not a serious threat to PCs.
Many innovations on the PC side eventually make their way to consoles.
Some new things on the console side eventually make their way to PC.
Mobile is not a serious threat to consoles or PCs either.
I think all three will continue to co-exist just fine on a macro scale.
Consoles are not a serious threat to PCs.
Many innovations on the PC side eventually make their way to consoles.
Some new things on the console side eventually make their way to PC.
Mobile is not a serious threat to consoles or PCs either.
I think all three will continue to co-exist just fine on a macro scale.
PC has the biggest restriction of all: socio-economic.
You get far more bang for your buck going with a console. And a guarantee that any title you pick up is going to work straight out of the packaging, for the life of the console.
Intel has enough clout and money to become big in mobile. Up until Bay Trail they weren't taking it as seriously as they should've been but their recent focus on mobile I feel will be a big challenge to ARM down the line.
Yeah, I agree with this. FWIW, ARM is certainly aware of the danger.
phosphor112
Banned
Since when has any mainstream gaming site said anything correct about PC gaming? Not saying that this is wrong, but still. Even Giant Bomb plays most of their stuff on PC and come off as clueless about PC games at times.
This is extremely arguable. The initial cost of a PC might be higher, but the overall value is much, much greater, and the savings in the long run are also much greater.
I'm not going to break it all down for you, but here are just a few things to to think about:
-No online subscription fees
-Games are much, much cheaper
-Backwards compatible to like, forever (with some exceptions)
-Easier to fix or modify if needed
-It's a goddamn computer you can use for any number of things
i'd say the giant bomb guys are pretty representative of the current trajectory of the average big time console gamer from this generation. they got bit by the PC bug while the last generation dragged its heels and now they aren't exactly running at next generation with their arms outstretched. they seem to be having trouble getting their hype for the new consoles above the level of professional curiosity.
though i guess they've had a pretty shitty year, all told.
Yep. A computer is pretty much a necessity in today's world while a console is not. Even folks on a budget will usually have a computer of some kind. Games become dirt cheap after 6 months and one set of hardware can play several generations worth of games. Add emulation and you have the most games to play of any machine on the planet.
I'm not saying PC's will do anything to console sales. But to argue that PC gaming cannot be a budget gamer's system of choice is not accurate.
Spazznid
Member
Quoted for golden truth.
It pains me to see, I believe even gametrailers barely counted the PC version of games for the longest time. The last few years has shown that they are slowly moving closer to PC for a lot of their stuff now. So I would act as if they are completely clueless.
Yeah, I considered all of this already.
The only additional cost for a console beyond the initial price-tag (which is often subsidized) is an online subscription, which only costs $50/year and comes with numerous free games, amongst other value-added content.
New PC titles are priced, at best, $10 cheaper than their console counterpart. Although this is starting to fade as more and more PC titles, including exclusives, are released at $60.
If you're talking older titles, you can purchase used games at a very similar price-point to the Steam sales. AND you can always re-sell it (for the same price you paid), trade it in, etc. PSN/LIVE are starting to run digital sales that are getting closer and closer to the value you get from a Steam sale, albeit not quite as cheap yet...buying used is often still the better value for a consumer.
Notably there is no used game market on the PC.
True to a large extent.
Modifying hardware isn't necessary on consoles...ever. It's one of the things that makes getting into PC gaming so difficult unless you're wealthy enough to do so too. If I buy a PS4 next month for $399 and it lasts 8 years until the next iteration, how much do you figure the average PC gamer will need to drop in a similar amount of time to reach/exceed visual parity?
Sentenza
Member
I often wonder if people saying this bullshit actually believe it.
It's not even a matter of opinions. One just needs to look around to know how even games released at a 50$ price point are usually available for less in the right places (i.e. it's almost impossible these days to look for a preorder on GMG or Amazon without some pretty heavy discount easily available, not to mention serial key resellers and so on) and they also tend to drop in price far more quickly than their console counterparts.
I need 300$ to exceed PS4, like every PC gamer with 4 cores CPU based PC. And my PS3 broke after 3 years and only way to fix it, is to replace whole motherboard, when on PC i could just replace GPU [HDMI burnt out in PS3].
The only problem I've had with console hardware has been under warranty, so I suppose I'm lucky here (if you consider 3 red-rings "lucky"...). PS3 is still going strong.
Also: there is no way that you will be able to reach visual parity with Killzone (although is there even a comparable PC title out there yet?) without spending more than $300 on upgrades. And this is without considering the initial investment in your PC too. PC titles simply are not optimized like console games are. You can brute-force your way into a better looking game, but a console will always be able to get a better looking game out of worse hardware. Apples to oranges there.
Prices for games are so cheap on PC that you hardly need a used game market. It's nice that one can sell a hard copy of a game, but we've seen things like online-access codes this gen, so used games don't always retain their full content value anyways. With backwards compatibility and digital distribution, you can play that one PC copy of your game well into the future on your next build, or across your multiple PCs, laptops, and SteamBoxes. So a given game has more flexibility in terms of when and where you're able to play. That's not even getting into the objective value of the game on PC being higher on account of customization and mods.
Re: modifying hardware and your 8 year scenario.... will your PS4 warranty last 8 years? If your console tanks after a few years, you'll have to buy a whole new system. If my GPU shits on me, I can just replace it for however much I'm willing to afford at the time, and even budget cards will match up well against a console.
I'm not saying consoles aren't a good value; they certainly are. But if you want to get down to it, they can't compare to the value of a PC. It's admittedly a bit trickier to get into, but if someone's so interested in getting the best value, and is an avid gamer, it's not daunting in the least.
Its funny, because Crysis 3 on my PC already looks better than KZ:SF and 300$ gets me more than 2 times more performance than PS4 [i have i5 2500k already].
And why should i count my initial cost of PC? I've bought this PC 2 years ago, should we count cost of TV when we count PS4 cost? Its ridiculous logic.
Yeah, crozier, you're basically just make up rules and assumptions about what 'matching performance' entails. Killzone looks nice on PS4, but I have no doubt that a decent PC would shit all over it--and it wouldn't require a stratospherically expensive PC or GPU upgrade to do so.
Just seems like you don't really know what's up with PC gaming, to be honest.
It counts because a console cycle lasts for 8 years. When I pick up a PS4 next month (well, if) I will make one investment of $399, then not likely spend another dime on hardware until late 2021.
I am a PC gamer too, although admittedly I haven't played Crysis 3 yet. I just think that consoles are ultimately a much better bargain if you're on a budget. That's the only argument I'm making here.
(By "I am a PC gamer too" I mean that I own over 350 Steam titles and tend to build my own systems)
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Oh snap evil genius 2...
I already know 2 fps that run completely through browsers. And they should have stand alone clients imo.
I already know 2 fps that run completely through browsers. And they should have stand alone clients imo.
Since the list has separated Steambox and PC, we can ignore Steambox for this purpose of this question... why would a PC be the biggest threat to consoles?
Is something different during this generation that wasn't before? Convenience of owning a console versus a PC hasn't changed. Consoles have a much larger base of exclusives. With the architecture being the same, you'll now have all the indie goodness that PC's have known, on consoles too.
Is something different during this generation that wasn't before? Convenience of owning a console versus a PC hasn't changed. Consoles have a much larger base of exclusives. With the architecture being the same, you'll now have all the indie goodness that PC's have known, on consoles too.
next gen console exclusive base is currently sitting at zero for both.
what's the PC number at?
F2P model, maybe? Facebook gaming and such is huge on the PC too nowadays (which is also F2P).
That console won't last that long and you know it.
But i stated that average PC gamer that has 4 cores CPU based PC need only 300$. Not a average PC gamer without PC. And new generation starts next month, not 2 years ago. Why should I add cost from 2 years ago to the generation that starts next month? For me, it was current gen cost.
ChiefofCitadelSecurity
Member
1. Games primarily made for it
2. 2 companies with millions and billions
3. Convenience
Steep climb for PC right there
2. 2 companies with millions and billions
3. Convenience
Steep climb for PC right there
EmptySpace
Banned
no, because there are not that many people who game on pc and consoles, the cross-section in the venn diagram between consoles and pc gamers isn't that big. out of the hundreds of millions of people in both the consoles and pc space, who has both? not that much. casual gaming on both may be true (minecraft on pc, cod on console). but the majority of pc players don't game on consoles, and vice versa.
Lucky you but consoles generally dont last that long.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Are you saying there are no exclusives for PC? lol... PC has the largest library of exclusive games when you include the fact that it is backwards compatible, infinitely.