• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The death of the Game Console

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Because Microsoft will make it so. And people do buy a shit ton of PCs. An apple computer is a PC. Think about how many laptops, desktops, and hybrids people buy across all the manufacturers. Even Google has gotten into the PC business with Chromebooks. Phones and tablets are very close to being PCs, given the range of software available - you can be very productive with just a phone or tablet these days. For example, I pretty much only post on here with my phone, but would never do that on a console because of the archaic interface of an on screen keyboard with input using a joystick. Consoles are very close to being a PC, you just can't do a whole lot of computing on them other than gaming. That will change with the arrival of 4k displays and more effective scaling will allow for people to more reading and typing on large living room displays.

What "computing" could I possibly want to do on my console? I purchase a console to play videogames, not run windows.

You stated yourself that you can do computing on mobile devices, as well as tablets and cheapo laptops. So why do I also need my console to perform some mundane task when I already have three other, more convenient devices for that?

Given the Alienware Alpha isn't setting the world on fire, I don't see Microsoft saying hey, let's follow this model for our next hardware, and we'll throw all of that third party royalty money and those Xbox Gold subs out the window.
 

wolfhowwl

Banned
I always thought PC gaming is dead was a main theme, now it's console gaming!

wDuSv7g.gif

What if we're all dead and this is Hell?
 

StevieP

Banned
Consoles will never die until PC gaming stops becoming a niche thing in Japan compared to consoles/handhelds.

Console gaming is niche in Japan.

Yup.

Which is why Apple sold 61.1 million iPhones this quarter, despite Android being "hackable and customizable".

I'm constantly amazed at how offended PC gamers are by consoles simply existing.

Android phones outsell iPhones.

One thing the internet is not short on, is PC people telling us how amazing their platform is and how consoles are pointless/dying. But a lot of us play on console and have or have had PC's in the past. I can't imagine there is anyone left on the fence to preach to.

People who took in the master race pontifications of recent years, and bought the $400 'PS4 killer' budget builds in late 2013/2014 have been burnt. And the ones who spent $1000+ are probably very happy.

The idea of plugging a PC into the TV and getting it to work (even by some alternate method where you aren't physically plugging it in) is a complex idea that I would say 99%+ of pc people don't do. PC gamers by and large play at a desk with an office chair and a monitor. That's still where PC primarily is. Living room PC is still in flux and not replacing consoles any time soon.

Often it's nice just to install a game and enjoy it, tweaked and honed by the devs to look/run as well as it can Spending long periods of time visiting a settings menu when loading a game, then constantly returning to it during play to scratch that performance OCD itch, can be frustrating.

As for the PC advantages?

Mild anti-aliasing when you are sitting in front of a TV doesn't bother a lot of people in the slightest.

60FPS is overrated in a lot of games, coming from someone who used to play Quake on a 90hz CRT monitor at 100fps more than 15 years ago to try to gain every advantage I could. Sure, it's amazing for some games, but those games are few and far between. 30fps is just fine for most games. Yes, sub-30 sucks, and we are seeing that occasionally. Yes, 60fps is amazing for fast paced games, but they are less common releases.

When everyone was playing Uncharted 1,2,3, Gears of War 1,2,3 and many other 30fps console games last generation, people talked about the fantastic games they had fun playing. Most didn't notice the framerate, for those that might have it wasn't a big issue. But I feel it's being made into a massive issue in the last 2 years, used as propoganda against consoles. It's just not a big deal.

A lot of the graphical advantages of the PC platform seem to only appreciated when you have your face close up to a monitor, maybe aliasing and 30fps is more noticable and repellant in that scenario, but it isn't bad at all sitting back from a TV.

I notice art, budget, craft, level design, sound design, lighting, shaders, etc, far more than aliasing and resolution... I mean I watch most of my TV show at 720p or lower and I rarely consider sharpness.

There is a danger of overestimating the value of tiny graphical things that most people don't care about.

And what about the disadvantages of PC?

There are definitely more bugs and graphical issues, driver issues, weird micro stutter, tearing issues, alt-tab issues, dodgy ports, DRM mess. Of course, none of this always happens, it might rarely happen, but you will spend a good bit more time troubleshooting and tweaking a PC than a console. It's getting better/closer, but it's still an issue.

No standard consoller. Local multiplayer around a TV with multiple controllers is far easier to set up on console.

I currently play Bloodborne, Destiny, FIFA 15, switching to PC entirely would eleminate a lot of what I'm enjoying.

PC gaming is big money, but for big AAA releases? With a few exceptions PC sales are a fraction of console. Consoles are still the bread and butter of high end development.

It's fantastic and healthy for the industry that PC is doing well thanks to steam, etc. But for flips sake give over.

ROFL at this thread. PC's never have, are or will be serious threats to the dominance of game consoles in the living room for most normal people. Beyond the obvious price, positioning and platform reasons there's one very obvious reason that isn't ever going to change. Most people don't care. Barely anybody wants to deal with building their own PC, drivers, OSs and filesystems. They just want something cheap that works, out of the box and will continue to do so with very little fuss over a period of a few years. That's basically the definition of a games console. Nobody watches a Call Of Duty ad during a baketball playoff game and thinks - "wow - I'm going to go out and but a couple of SLI Titans, a tower, a sdd, a Windows copy, 32GB of DDR4 and 2 gallons of Thermal Paste because I want to play this at 240 fps at 8000p in about a week's time". Most people are like - "neat - I guess I'll just pick up a PS4/Xbox 1 and hook it up to my TV in 2 hours".

Why do you think mobile devices are where most "Personal Computing" happens today?

2 posts on the same page from 2006? People should really do their research before posting that much inane drivel.

This is the worst thread on GAF.

This happens every time some warriors feel threatened by a suggestion such as this. These newer consoles have more in common with PCs than even their lower end x86 parts would imply.
 
More like I got a handful of responses that skirted around my question. Not one response has justified why Microsoft and Sony need to make proprietary, closed consoles and stick to a traditional console cycle when gaming consoles are no longer cutting edge and solely leading the way for the rest of the industry. The gaming industry is growing around them and at a faster pace than previous generations.

I'm still waiting for a good response, so if you have something constructive to add please be my guest.

More like you just ignored them.

I have yet to actually read a good reason about why they suddenly need to die for real progress, when the PC platform is set up in the exact same way.

You cannot install Steam and play Battlefield. Not install origin and play D3. Not install Battle.net and play LoL. The market is just as fragmented among publisher services that double as platforms. Closed and open. This is because everyone wants their piece of the pie.

Multiple service logins is one of the things that consoles eliminate. Put your disc in or download and play, you are finished. Sign up for a service once and play everything that will ever come out on the platform. Battlefield, D3, and everything else. When people say ease of use, this is one of those cases.

So you're really just spouting nonsense, having constantly refreshing hardware that only appeals to a tiny subset of the market isn't good business. Like Sega.

The proprietary box exists because it eliminates all of those barriers for a fee many are willing to pay combined with knowing you will basically have access to every major gaming release for the next 6-7 years. For folks who simply don't want to bother, it solves everything for a smaller fee than my 980, and gives publishers a closed design spec to aim for, tune their engines and optimize over 6-7 years to enhance margins. And it is first priority for most of the top devs. I played GTA V on two different platforms before it even released on PC. I still can go play RDR, etc.

Consoles aren't anywhere close to this death. I remember when the same was being said about PC gaming--both platforms evolve and maintain their advantages.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
What "computing" could I possibly want to do on my console? I purchase a console to play videogames, not run windows.

You stated yourself that you can do computing on mobile devices, as well as tablets and cheapo laptops. So why do I also need my console to perform some mundane task when I already have three other, more convenient devices for that?

Given the Alienware Alpha isn't setting the world on fire, I don't see Microsoft saying hey, let's follow this model for our next hardware, and we'll throw all of that third party royalty money and those Xbox Gold subs out the window.

So you enjoy having everything behind a paywall? Regardless, they could still offer a gaming subscription service, something along the lines of EA access or Playstation now. They could also easily put online mp for first party titles behind a paywall.

Once beautiful 4k displays become widespread, people will actually want to do productive things on those displays. I do photo editing on my 65 inch Panasonic 4k, for example.

I don't see why you wouldn't want the ability to run a full blown OS on future systems, you're intentionally asking for a locked down corporate ecosystem. Why? As I've said, you will be able to boot into a console type mode if you want. It should be up to the consumer what kind of use they want to get out of their hardware if the hardware is capable of running it. I don't understand why so many people advocate for corporate supply side decision making.
 

bfwings55

Member
As long as consoles don't fuck it up by adding too many online features, updates, and other up-front bullshit, PC's will never overtake the plug and play ease of a console for the average parent looking for something for their kids that they don't have to spend a weekend setting up.
 
All I want is a system where i buy a game and play it on my TV with nothing else to worry about. No viruses, technical problems, driver updates, or always worrying about not being able to run a game well. (Yes you can check the minimum requirements but you won't know exactly how well it runs, example 40fps on medium versus 20 fps on low.)

This is true for the masses as well, and why I don't think PCs will overtake consoles as long as they are so open ended.
 
A lot of digital ink gets spilled on PC overtaking console but the thing is that both markets are getting their lunches eaten by phones and tablets. Embrace the future of simple quick play games. Your faves, PC or console, are already niche.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
A lot of digital ink gets spilled on PC overtaking console but the thing is that both markets are getting their lunches eaten by phones and tablets. Embrace the future of simple quick play games. Your faves, PC or console, are already niche.

Tablets will be able to produce visuals on par with today's consoles by the end of this generation, and the gameplay will follow. Phones will be there within the next 5-10 years. People will be plugging in phones and tablets, and using a controller on a big screen at 1080p, within the decade. Dedicated boxes/PCs/consoles will be for the higher end, hardcore gaming fan base that wants to do 4k native 60 fps.
 
2 posts on the same page from 2006? People should really do their research before posting that much inane drivel.
Really. I'm completely missing the $399 gaming PC's I can buy that I just take out of a box, plug into my TV and play all AAA releases on. You know the ones that come with a one year warranty and gets every AAA release on day one with platform holders who pay for the promotion of those games. They do exist and they're called gaming consoles.

This isn't 2006. Gamers are older than before which means they have jobs, families and all the other wonderful (/s) stuff that comes with being older. Very few people in the 18-34 age group (now the primary gaming demographic) that I know use a PC for gaming. Modern consoles are basically PC's designed to be good at media consumption (legally). For that matter, smartphones are basically PCs designed to be carried around. What you call PC's are generalist devices primarily used for spreadsheets, browsing and other enterprise focused tasks. As computing becomes cheaper, it makes sense for people to own multiple specialized devices instead on one generalized device.
 
Android phones outsell iPhones.

Now remove the low-end Android phones with which Apple doesn't compete...

This happens every time some warriors feel threatened by a suggestion such as this. These newer consoles have more in common with PCs than even their lower end x86 parts would imply.

Threads like this and posts like yours happen because "warriors" (like you appear to be right now) can't stand the thought of consoles existing, for the most inane reasons possible. It's every bit as dumb as "The death of PC gaming" articles/threads.
 

NolbertoS

Member
Interesting thread, I'll bookmark it for another decade when consoles are still selling and see another similar thread pop up.
 

mazpratim

Member
Mobile is way more of a threat to consoles than PC, considering mobile is the vast majority of kids play now instead of consoles
 

Sydle

Member
More like you just ignored them.

I have yet to actually read a good reason about why they suddenly need to die for real progress, when the PC platform is set up in the exact same way.

You cannot install Steam and play Battlefield. Not install origin and play D3. Not install Battle.net and play LoL. The market is just as fragmented among publisher services that double as platforms. Closed and open. This is because everyone wants their piece of the pie.

Multiple service logins is one of the things that consoles eliminate. Put your disc in or download and play, you are finished. Sign up for a service once and play everything that will ever come out on the platform. Battlefield, D3, and everything else. When people say ease of use, this is one of those cases.

So you're really just spouting nonsense, having constantly refreshing hardware that only appeals to a tiny subset of the market isn't good business. Like Sega.

The proprietary box exists because it eliminates all of those barriers for a fee many are willing to pay combined with knowing you will basically have access to every major gaming release for the next 6-7 years. For folks who simply don't want to bother, it solves everything for a smaller fee than my 980, and gives publishers a closed design spec to aim for, tune their engines and optimize over 6-7 years to enhance margins. And it is first priority for most of the top devs. I played GTA V on two different platforms before it even released on PC. I still can go play RDR, etc.

Consoles aren't anywhere close to this death. I remember when the same was being said about PC gaming--both platforms evolve and maintain their advantages.

I would have responded to someone who actually got it, all I saw were a few people taking it off into a direction that I'm not proposing.

I'm not proposing constantly refreshed hardware, just not locked down hardware to take advantage of any gains made and giving consumers a choice to ride the technology curve as they want. It would also finally give us backwards and forwards compatibility. The high-performance crowd doesn't lose anything here and I doubt their buying behavior would change.

That doesn't necessarily preclude Sony or Microsoft from making a small-form, optimized PC's that boots their own OS or services, simplifying ownership and use, much like Nvidia and Steam are starting to do.

No multiple services login on consoles? Eliminated you say? I guess I imagined when I had to create an EA account to play EA games online on my Xbox, or that Square Enix account for FFXIV on PS4.

The consoles are evolving, to be more PC like.

You can continue being as inflammatory as you like. I don't mind.
 

Laconic

Banned
As long as consoles don't fuck it up by adding too many online features, updates, and other up-front bullshit, PC's will never overtake the plug and play ease of a console for the average parent looking for something for their kids that they don't have to spend a weekend setting up.

So... last gen, then?
 

StevieP

Banned
Now remove the low-end Android phones with which Apple doesn't compete...



Threads like this and posts like yours happen because "warriors" (like you appear to be right now) can't stand the thought of consoles existing, for the most inane reasons possible. It's every bit as dumb as "The death of PC gaming" articles/threads.

That's like saying consoles don't compare with PCs because they're low end in comparison. Sorry but they're all phones and they all play games.

And I own tons of consoles thanks. I play games on them all the time. Weekly. My primary platform, however, just happens to be the one that I, as a gaming enthusiast, believe to be the platform for gaming enthusiasts' best interests in multiple ways.

Now if many of you are going to argue that consoles are still easy peasy plug and play stick the disc in and go, I'd like to direct you to 2005 when this was the last time it was still true. The lines have more than blurred, which is why mobile and PC are growth markets whereas dedicated gaming systems are the opposite.
 

Pokemaniac

Member
Tablets will be able to produce visuals on par with today's consoles by the end of this generation, and the gameplay will follow. Phones will be there within the next 5-10 years. People will be plugging in phones and tablets, and using a controller on a big screen at 1080p, within the decade. Dedicated boxes/PCs/consoles will be for the higher end, hardcore gaming fan base that wants to do 4k native 60 fps.

I'm sure that my phone can produce better visuals than my 3DS, and yet I'm pretty sure the average 3DS game still has more depth than the average phone game. I don't think power is what's holding back mobile devices. I think the bigger problem is the software ecosystem that mobile devices have created.
 
Didnt John Carmack recently state that game development on Android is a mess? I had an LG g3 and switched to an iphone 6 and the games i played on my G3 felt slower and the OS felt more resource heavy. Phone would get decently hot at times even when surfing the web or using twitter. My iphone runs cool and it feels like a better device. I am sure linux gaming will get better especially on higher end PC's but if Sony wants to direct people to android like the OP said, Google has a ton of work ahead of them.
 

Pokemaniac

Member
That's like saying consoles don't compare with PCs because they're low end in comparison. Sorry but they're all phones and they all play games.

And I own tons of consoles thanks. I play games on them all the time. Weekly. My primary platform, however, just happens to be the one that I, as a gaming enthusiast, believe to be the platform for gaming enthusiasts' best interests in multiple ways.

Now if many of you are going to argue that consoles are still easy peasy plug and play stick the disc in and go, I'd like to direct you to 2005 when this was the last time it was still true. The lines have more than blurred, which is why mobile and PC are growth markets whereas dedicated gaming systems are the opposite.

Wii U says hi.
 

StevieP

Banned
Wii U says hi.

Wii u is certainly the closest thing to what a game console is supposed to be that we have this generation but it

A) still has lots of updates, patches, space management, computer-lite functionality, apps, etc built into it and
B) is basically irrelevant outside of its vaunted exclusives that are great for the 10-15 million people that are going to own one. And I say that as a Wii u owner
 

gatti-man

Member
If consoles die it will be a gaming disaster and everyone will lose. I've been PC gaming since the early 80s and consoles offer games that we would never see on PC. The same could be said if PC gaming dies. They are complimentary platforms and I wish them both a long life.
 
That's like saying consoles don't compare with PCs because they're low end in comparison. Sorry but they're all phones and they all play games.

Poster pointed out that iOS is a closed platform that sells incredibly well. You reply by stating that Android sells more, but that's not due to "hackability" and rather because Android has a broader potential (and actual) consumer base. You're evading the facts that matter here.

And I own tons of consoles thanks. I play games on them all the time. Weekly. My primary platform, however, just happens to be the one that I, as a gaming enthusiast, believe to be the platform for gaming enthusiasts' best interests in multiple ways.

It's really funny that when PC gamers talk about platforms, they're just concerned citizens. When console gamers do it, however, they're being warriors.

Now if many of you are going to argue that consoles are still easy peasy plug and play stick the disc in and go, I'd like to direct you to 2005 when this was the last time it was still true. The lines have more than blurred, which is why mobile and PC are growth markets whereas dedicated gaming systems are the opposite.

Yeah, the PS4 is selling terrible, right? Everyone knows the gen-over-gen sales are down because there's no Wii console this gen. "Core" gamers are still there.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
The general public wants a device that they can plug up and get to what they want to do with a minimum of time and effort, and where software just works.

Consoles used to be that and are getting worse about it. PCs used to be the antithesis of it and are getting better about it.

It's a fair prediction that the two lines will eventually converge, but that point seems like a matter of perspective... Did consoles become more like PCs, or did PCs become more like consoles? Both arguments will have validity.

The wild card is how much the average PC's free and open architecture stays free and open. As security issues and hacking continue to become more omnipresent and commonplace, consumers will likely be increasingly amenable to the trade-off of a more controlled architecture with less customization if it means they can put that mess out of their head and stop treating their usage defensively. The set specs and disposable upgrade path of tablets and smartphones are already well started on paving the way for this mindset, IMO.
 

Dynasty8

Member
If you believe that, you have no clue about mobile gaming. It's thriving with interesting and quality indie games. It's much more than shallow F2P shit

Interesting ideas don't always make up quality in my opinion. You'll always find cool games in the app- store that promote connectivity between players and other interesting traits. But at the end of the day, it doesn't feel the same as playing a game on your "gaming" console, on a big screen t.v, while using a controller built for gaming. Those are the qualities I'm referring to.

Ports like Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, and FF6 just feel atrocious on mobile...they're really, really bad IMO...and those 3 are among my favorite games of all time. Mobile games are a quick distraction that can provide some fun here and there, but it's missing the depth that some of these console and PC games offer. Console and PC games are something that can immerse you for hours and provide a different type of experience that mobile and tablet cannot. I'm sure we both can agree on this...and for the record, I don't wish mobile gaming disappears, I just wish developers and publishers focus more on console/PC than mobile/tablet. I also wish those huge number of candy crush players would wake up and realize what else is out there.
 

Boss Mog

Member
What was the purpose of this thread? I mean there's no question being asked, it just reads as a blog post where the OP states his opinion as fact.

The console might die one day but I honestly doubt it'll be soon. I would be shocked if there was no PS5 in a few years time. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the fact that MS and Sony went with x86 this time almost guarantees future boxes. These guys want to have their own ecosystem, that's how they make money. On PC, big publishers can have their own ecosystem like Origin or Uplay and obviously there's Steam . The only way Sony can stay in the game business is by having its own box and going with x86 from this point on means that their ecosystem will stay compatible with future iterations of their box. At least that's the way I see it.
 

JordanN

Banned
The same was once true of arcades in the mid 1990s when people always considered arcade quality visuals as vastly superior and hence desirable. Consoles caught up, overtook them and arcades languished.

I wouldn't be surprised if consoles are experiencing a similar market pressure albeit for different reasons.
Arcade games were being ported to consoles all the time. The idea of inserting quarters into a machine did very little to make Arcade games unique. Once consoles caught up in power, arcade exclusives made less sense.

Console games aren't being ported to smartphones in mass. Again, besides power, the console market is the only market that supports AAA.
 
As long as consoles don't fuck it up by adding too many online features, updates, and other up-front bullshit, PC's will never overtake the plug and play ease of a console for the average parent looking for something for their kids that they don't have to spend a weekend setting up.

the gigs of patches and other bullshit has gotten so bad they won't know the difference between the two imo.
 

Tagyhag

Member
My guess straight from my ass, there will be a next gen.

IF there is a next next gen, the consoles will not be what people are used to.

Physical format consoles WILL die. It sucks, but digital is the future, there's no holding it back.
 
Interesting ideas don't always make up quality in my opinion. You'll always find cool games in the app- store that promote connectivity between players and other interesting traits. But at the end of the day, it doesn't feel the same as playing a game on your "gaming" console, on a big screen t.v, while using a controller built for gaming. Those are the qualities I'm referring to.

Ports like Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, and FF6 just feel atrocious on mobile...they're really, really bad IMO...and those 3 are among my favorite games of all time. Mobile games are a quick distraction that can provide some fun here and there, but it's missing the depth that some of these console and PC games offer. Console and PC games are something that can immerse you for hours and provide a different type of experience that mobile and tablet cannot. I'm sure we both can agree on this...and for the record, I don't wish mobile gaming disappears, I just wish developers and publishers focus more on console/PC than mobile/tablet. I also wish those huge number of candy crush players would wake up and realize what else is out there.
I'm not talking about ports. Stuff like The Room, 80 Days, Sorcery, Device 6, Implosion, Monument Valley, Penumbear, Incoboto, and many more are as good as any indie you'd find on PC and consoles. Seriously, if you think mobile games are all quick distractions or games without depth, you dont know what else is on the platform

As for ports, FTL, Papers Please, and Limbo are the gold standard for mobile ports IMO. I'd argue that FTL and Papers Please on iPad are the definite versions of the game. The upcoming ports of Door Kickers and This War of Mine should play well on mobile too
 
I would have responded to someone who actually got it, all I saw were a few people taking it off into a direction that I'm not proposing.

I'm not proposing constantly refreshed hardware, just not locked down hardware to take advantage of any gains made and giving consumers a choice to ride the technology curve as they want. It would also finally give us backwards and forwards compatibility. The high-performance crowd doesn't lose anything here and I doubt their buying behavior would change.

That doesn't necessarily preclude Sony or Microsoft from making a small-form, optimized PC's that boots their own OS or services, simplifying ownership and use, much like Nvidia and Steam are starting to do.

No multiple services login on consoles? Eliminated you say? I guess I imagined when I had to create an EA account to play EA games online on my Xbox, or that Square Enix account for FFXIV on PS4.

The consoles are evolving, to be more PC like.

You can continue being as inflammatory as you like. I don't mind.

So, again, you haven't explained why this is better than the current tract--the amount of people who want this option is completely dwarfed by those that don't, to the point of not making it viable. The high-performance crowd isn't the focus, it's everyone else who wants easy access to great looking games without the hassle. The small form, optimized PC that is still running Windows on PC isn't something the market actually wants, and certainly not as a console replacement.

You are describing all of the reasons why it would be good for you and a tiny handful, and suck for everyone else that doesn't want the option nor want publishers to plan for it. It's in the same niche as BC, ultimately irrelevant and largely pointless.

And I'm positive that I was not required to make a battle.net account to play D3 on my PS4. So again, not really. It's still one ecosystem, not one per hit game. This is a better experience.

Funny enough, most of what you are describing could be done with the PS3--you could install another OS, basically use any BT device, any kb/m, any headset, usb support, etc. It also cost $599. Market rejected it at that price. Same way they basically gave a middle finger to Sega for trying an upgrade often path.

I have yet to see anyone actually explain reasons that don't involve "Well, I just want it to change so its better for me".

Yeah, the PS4 is selling terrible, right? Everyone knows the gen-over-gen sales are down because there's no Wii console this gen. "Core" gamers are still there.

I've learned to ignore most of the arguments that omit this little fact.

I simply don't get why some believe that one must die so the other replaces it, when the market is capable of supporting both + phones.
It's like saying Burgers will eventually destroy pizza because you can't have 2 items that tastes great and have ice cream.
 

Sydle

Member
So, again, you haven't explained why this is better than the current tract--the amount of people who want this option is completely dwarfed by those that don't, to the point of not making it viable. The high-performance crowd isn't the focus, it's everyone else who wants easy access to great looking games without the hassle. The small form, optimized PC that is still running Windows on PC isn't something the market actually wants, and certainly not as a console replacement.

You are describing all of the reasons why it would be good for you and a tiny handful, and suck for everyone else that doesn't want the option nor want publishers to plan for it. It's in the same niche as BC, ultimately irrelevant and largely pointless.

And I'm positive that I was not required to make a battle.net account to play D3 on my PS4. So again, not really. It's still one ecosystem, not one per hit game. This is a better experience.

Funny enough, most of what you are describing could be done with the PS3--you could install another OS, basically use any BT device, any kb/m, any headset, usb support, etc. It also cost $599. Market rejected it at that price. Same way they basically gave a middle finger to Sega for trying an upgrade often path.

I have yet to see anyone actually explain reasons that don't involve "Well, I just want it to change so its better for me".

I've said it's for the backwards and forwards compatibly like a dozen times.

Stay focused.
 
I've said it's for the backwards and forwards compatibly like a dozen times.

Stay focused.

I actually addressed that. This is something that very few people actually care about.
Old interview with Mattrick said 5% of players ever used it.

Focused indeed.
 
My guess straight from my ass, there will be a next gen.

IF there is a next next gen, the consoles will not be what people are used to.

Physical format consoles WILL die. It sucks, but digital is the future, there's no holding it back.

Not for at least the generation after this, between caps and the absence of good broadband internet in large parts of the world it'll still take time.
 

Opiate

Member
the gigs of patches and other bullshit has gotten so bad they won't know the difference between the two imo.

I think they still know the difference, but also agree that the gap has definitely narrowed.

Consoles used to have an enormous convenience gap over PCs, but that has narrowed in both directions: consoles have gotten more complicated/messy, and PCs have gotten more simple/convenient. As I said, I don't think the gap is entirely or even mostly closed, but it's narrowed significantly at this point.
 

120v

Member
I don't think the general public will ever be informed enough to migrate to PC in droves, no matter how much of a better proposition it is. but this gen will probably be test of that with the influx of small form builds like alienware alpha and steamboxes. still though, at around $400+ it's kind of a tough sell to joe six pack
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
I think they still know the difference, but also agree that the gap has definitely narrowed.

Consoles used to have an enormous convenience gap over PCs, but that has narrowed in both directions: consoles have gotten more complicated/messy, and PCs have gotten more simple/convenient. As I said, I don't think the gap is entirely or even mostly closed, but it's narrowed significantly at this point.

PC as a gaming option is more accessible than ever before, its cheaper than ever to be a PC gamer as well. Chances are, an off the shelf computer you buy from best buy will be capable of playing 80% of games on steam in some capacity without any tinkering whatsoever. Hell, my friend bought a 400 dollar laptop and it can play most 7th gen multiplatform games at 360 performance or higher easily.

But i will agree that consoles still perform a specific role that plenty of people flock to. Many people still love a closed ecosystem with its own games and services, and buying one unit for a very long time with no real need to worry about anything besides that. (although last gen and more increasingly this gen console gamers have to worry about HDD sizes and upgrading those, which puts a small dent in the convenience factor)

As for me, i'm a console only gamer, but only because i'm just not interested in the pros of PC gaming at all(or iOS, or handheld for that matter). But one would be a fool to deny the full advantages the PC platform.
 

Opiate

Member
Most importantly, I think it's silly to make this a competition exclusively between PCs and consoles.

The problem for consoles is not PCs, specifically. The problem is that they are getting sandwiched between mobile/social platforms -- which are even cheaper and more convenient than consoles are -- and PC. I think consoles can find and still do have their place, so please don't take this as doomsaying. I do think there are problems, however. Most products don't have a serious problem with a competitor; Coke and Pepsi exist relatively harmoniously, for instance. The problems arise more prominently when two separate competitors attack from different angles.
 

Quotient

Member
I don't think consoles will die out, but i do think the generations will be shorter. With this generation we already had PC's out-performing the consoles, and these are computers that are no more than $600-$1000, and as the years continue, we will find this price lowering. I don't think Microsoft and Sony can sustain their consoles for 5+ years.
 
I have yet to read a jeff_rigby post and understand any of it. They read like misterxmedia posts except instead of eSRAM and DirectX 12 they're about IPTV, codecs and DLNA.
 

Jaeger

Member
I can't wait until super high resolutions are on my small phablet with wipy touch controls. So tired of my console, tv, couch nonsense. Then everyone can sit around me and watch me play HD FLAPPY BIRD.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
I don't think consoles will die out, but i do think the generations will be shorter. With this generation we already had PC's out-performing the consoles, and these are computers that are no more than $600-$1000, and as the years continue, we will find this price lowering. I don't think Microsoft and Sony can sustain their consoles for 5+ years.

They can because most of the time, console gamers are not really into high performance. If they were they would buy PC's for high end performance. Its not really about "well those guys can to 4k 60fps and consoles cant, screw consoles". PC's were at the highest gap from consoles at the very end of the 7th gen, with an over 24x power gap there, and still, there were plenty who found their own reasons to stay on console or keep their consoles around.

I think the fact that the console makers supporting their consoles for so many years is actually a reason for that, and not the other way around.

You say that PC components are decreasing in price all the time, which is absolutely true, but the same will be true of the consoles. With generic parts and higher profit margins, decreasing the price will be easier than ever to swallow(unless your microsoft, going 150 in less than a year is never good), and an upgrade path is much easier to see as well.

I think all of this translates to a shorter gen cycle than 7th gen, back to 'normal' console cycles of around 6 years.
 
Top Bottom