Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Round XXX - FIGHT! [The Upcoming Console Wars]

13

Posts

  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    I'm interested in the steam box, if it's reasonably priced. The thing that turns me off personally is (as mentioned) hardware standardisation. I read something about different "grades" of steam box, and I started to get a little cold on the idea.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    I'm interested in the steam box, if it's reasonably priced. The thing that turns me off personally is (as mentioned) hardware standardisation. I read something about different "grades" of steam box, and I started to get a little cold on the idea.

    It's not that much different than 360s or PS3s coming with different hardware options at different price points. The Steambox is just more modular than those consoles.


    EDIT: Also, it occurs to me that the Steambox will finally answer the call for those few people still holding out hope for The Phantom.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Okay, you wanna know how terrible Nintendo's marketing of the WiiU is?

    I was talking to a coworker today about gaming, and she mentioned she just got a WiiU tablet and was playing some games with her kids on it. She described it as an attachment for the Wii. Not only do regular people misunderstand that the WiiU is a completely new system, even people who have already bought the thing are unaware that it is actually a new system.

    I think the fact that a WiiU basically looks exactly like a Wii is not helping, because if I were to glance at a box I would assume it was just a picture of a tablet connected to an old Wii.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    JusticeforPluto
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    From what I understand of the situation, Nintendo has read the current handheld device trend (whether that be smartphones or tablets) as meaning, "These are dominating the market because of their sleek appearance & modern tactile sensibilities."

    From a certain perspective I guess that would look sensible; most smart phones and tablets are far more expensive if bought outright than the 3DS, for example, and yet the 3DS wasn't able to compete in the market without a large price drop.

    But, of course, people don't buy smart phones at full price. They get theirs for like 25-50 bucks with a stupidly long contract that they should never have agreed to sign (but people do, because people are short sighted), and smart phones are like this default fucking accessory for any human being in the first world now.


    I hate to say it, but Nintendo is looking more and more out of touch, somewhat similar to Sega during it's last years as a hardware manufacturer. It probably won't be that many years before they're making games for other systems... which I guess isn't all that bad.

    With Love and Courage
  • BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    Yeah, no.

    It took Sega four successive failed consoles to finally drop out of making hardware.

    Nintendo has only one (the Virtual Boy) and it was almost 2 decades ago.

    The company isn't going anywhere even the most well paid troll in the world (Pachter) has admitted that.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Sega was a console manufacturer in a different time, in a different market. None of it's consoles were spectacular failures in Japan (the Saturn, which sold poorly in the U.S., sold quite well in Japan); it was only after the Dreamcast was crowded-out of the market by Sony's Playstation 2, both at home and abroad, that Sega abandoned the market (they didn't close up shop; they're still an active publisher. They just decided that they couldn't keep fighting for one particular slice of the home entertainment pie).

    Nintendo is now selling hardware at a loss, which they've never done before, and experiencing a real shift in the market away from dedicated devices - something that, until now, they've exclusively manufactured. They don't have to go out of business to be forced out of the console space: they just have to be shown that they can't gain market share anymore.

    I think that the WiiU will be the machine to show them that.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    Sega dropped out of hardware because the company was horribly mismanaged, the head of Sega Japan wanted out, and the company was bleeding money on hardware.

    The Sega CD flopped, the 32X flopped, most Saturns were sold at heavy losses, every Dreamcast was sold at a loss.

    None of that applies to Nintendo. The 3DS had a slow start, but it is now dominating Japan, selling decently in the U.S. and every unit is sold at a profit now.

    The WiiU is selling horribly due to its high price and paltry library. But it is taking a slight loss and the numbers can rise when software comes for the system.

    So long as Nintendo can afford to make hardware the company will make hardware.




  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    None of that applies to Nintendo. The 3DS had a slow start, but it is now dominating Japan, selling decently in the U.S. and every unit is sold at a profit now.

    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm under the impression this is misleading:

    The 3DS is sold at a profit if the consumer also buys it with a game, in which case that game is sold at a loss (essentially, Ninendo is just shifting around where they are claiming the loss is, so that they can tell people the console itself is still sold at a profit).

    The 3DS did not have a slow start - it moved more units (according to Nintendo) on Day 1 than any of their previous handhelds. The problem is that they hit a sales slump after all of their initial success, and this was apparently due to both the price of the unit & the lack of 1st party titles (when the price dropped and the software library expanded, it started selling again).
    The WiiU is selling horribly due to its high price and paltry library. But it is taking a slight loss and the numbers can rise when software comes for the system.

    So long as Nintendo can afford to make hardware the company will make hardware.

    Yes, the fortunes of the WiiU may turn around when some killer apps are released. But, according to the data we have now - not speculative future data - it's not doing well. Part of that, as Jeffe said, is marketing, part of it is cost & the lackluster library, as you have said - but I think a bigger part is simply that the room in the market for dedicated gaming devices has shrunk. Time will tell, but I don't think the WiiU will do well, and I'm skeptical of the PS4's fortunes as well.

    With Love and Courage
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the base specs between the PS4 and the MS3 (that is a handy shorthand) aren't that different, and that they're both on x86 in order to stop being seen as so exclusive. There's room for some exclusivity, but in general people don't want to agonize over which game box to buy. There's a couple features that are important to certain people, and people do ultimately prefer some variety.

    I don't think there will ever be a monopoly in the video game market. We have 3 now and Nintendo, doing their own thing, is almost more like a 2 and 1. But, since the 1 doing their own thing is still games, they're probably not going anywhere.

    Their marketing has always sucked, in my view, and the Wii U was a hardware misstep because I think even Nintendo isn't sure what to do with the tablet. All they seem to know is that they don't want to copycat the hardware iteration sequence ad nauseum, but the Wii's meteoric rise and then similar fall shows that they aren't outside the realm of innovating and surprising the market. Even with that, they aren't always sure how to capitalize on their success.

    What I don't understand is that Nintendo still doesn't seem to realize that people primarily buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games. They should be releasing a TON more games. It's testament to the strength of their brands that they can largely get by with a 4-year release cycle on their top franchises, but that's no way to launch a system.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I hate to say it, but Nintendo is looking more and more out of touch, somewhat similar to Sega during it's last years as a hardware manufacturer. It probably won't be that many years before they're making games for other systems... which I guess isn't all that bad.

    Nintendo is about to drop out of the hardware race and will start making software for the other console any day now since the N64.

    Some prophecies just lose their punch when you hear them too often.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Especially when said company isn't really loosing money and has an enourmous fucking war chest.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Especially when said company isn't really loosing money and has an enourmous fucking war chest.

    It's a capitalist market, Skryke; it doesn't matter if you're making money, it matters that you stay growth positive. So, the question is, will Nintendo grab market share to stay growth positive (and, more importantly, will it meet investor expectations for growth)?

    I don't think it will. That's not a 'prophecy'; that's seeing multiple large publishers implode and just outright vanish the year after they saw what should have been huge success, watching Nintendo lose the handheld battle to a cellphone technology explosion that nobody in that sector saw coming and now watching Wii U flounder miserably. "Things will pick up!" was a motif in Death of a Salesman for a reason.

    The times, man.

    They are a changin'.


    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
    Caveman Paws
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Especially when said company isn't really loosing money and has an enourmous fucking war chest.

    It's a capitalist market, Skryke; it doesn't matter if you're making money, it matters that you stay growth positive. So, the question is, will Nintendo grab market share to stay growth positive (and, more importantly, will it meet investor expectations for growth)?

    There's no indications it won't do well enough to keep anything insane like dropping out of the profitable hardware market from happening. Nintendo's always been a rather conservative company financially and you seem to be attributing strange motivations and powers to their investors.

    I don't think it will. That's not a 'prophecy'; that's seeing multiple large publishers implode and just outright vanish the year after they saw what should have been huge success, watching Nintendo lose the handheld battle to a cellphone technology explosion that nobody in that sector saw coming and now watching Wii U flounder miserably. "Things will pick up!" was a motif in Death of a Salesman for a reason.

    The times, man.

    They are a changin'.

    Nintendo is not anything like the publishers imploding. Nintendo has alot more going for it. And Nintendo's handheld division is still making lots o money, even if smartphones have taken a bite out of the market and the WiiU is doing rather poorly, but Nintendo releases their consoles at a price where they don't lose money hand-over-fist because of shit like this.

    There's no indication that Nintendo is suffering any sort of long term slump. Certainly not one big enough to endanger the company or cause a fundamental restructuring. They can survive this the same way MS could survive the original Xbox.

    This doom and gloom shit is silly.

  • Njashi9Njashi9 Registered User regular
    It´s far more likely that Sony will drop out of the console business during the next cycle, but that depends on how the PS4 performs.

    Nintendo isn't going anywhere but the WiiU itself is in a rather shitty situation at the moment.

    steam_sig.png
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    If the cycle holds, the next next-gen wouldn't be happening until 2020 at the earliest, and I can't help thinking that when people say this might be the last generation of consoles as we know them, they might be right. Between phones having games, and the ever-increasing ubiquity of PC/Mac/etc desk/laptops, I can't help wonder where the console honestly fits or will continue to fit in the future. When I listened to Sony's presentation, I saw a lot of ideas about things that felt like stuff I can already do on my computer. Sure, maybe they'll slap together a means of say, streaming your gameplay easier than doing it on PC...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    I've been a lifelong player of games on both console and PC, but I find myself increasingly wondering what the point of a console is, outside of wanting access to the games which aren't released on PC (none of which, I might add, are not released because they cannot function there).

  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    The one thing I wonder about with the Wii U release is what a "perfect" console and launch would have done.

    Nintendo has dropped the ball significantly so far even in making people aware of the Wii U, let alone appealing to enthusiasts, so it can be easy to blame the weak start as solely Nintendo's fault. Does that mean that a well advertised, well positioned console would have set sales records?

    While Nintendo's woes are their own for now, the hypothetical becomes interesting when looking ahead to the PS4 and MS' new console. I know from my point of view, I'm just not very excited by what is coming down the pipe. Is that because I'm too jaded? Is the typical console purchaser more or less likely than me to be interested in what is coming?

    Anecdotally, my friends who game as their primary hobby and who have lots of money and time are planning on buying a new console. All the others who do not have all three of those things going for them seem like they're moving on.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    ...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    Same reason people are more likely to buy a pre-built PC than make one, even though building your own PC results in a better machine for less money and is not at all hard to do. Same reason people go to Starbucks even though getting your own espresso machine and making your own lattes saves a ton of money and isn't that hard.

    Never underestimate the appeal of convenience.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    shrykeQuida5ehrenJusticeforPlutoCaveman Paws
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    If the cycle holds, the next next-gen wouldn't be happening until 2020 at the earliest, and I can't help thinking that when people say this might be the last generation of consoles as we know them, they might be right. Between phones having games, and the ever-increasing ubiquity of PC/Mac/etc desk/laptops, I can't help wonder where the console honestly fits or will continue to fit in the future. When I listened to Sony's presentation, I saw a lot of ideas about things that felt like stuff I can already do on my computer. Sure, maybe they'll slap together a means of say, streaming your gameplay easier than doing it on PC...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    I've been a lifelong player of games on both console and PC, but I find myself increasingly wondering what the point of a console is, outside of wanting access to the games which aren't released on PC (none of which, I might add, are not released because they cannot function there).

    I've been researching a new computer purchase, and it is interesting that the next generation of Intel processors will have a built-in graphics processor that supposedly rivals mid-range separate cards. Another technology that's in development is wireless video streaming from regular laptops/PCs to computers. Once you get to the point where only the hardest of the hardcore even need to worry about graphics cards and any computer can wirelessly stream games to the living room TV, the consoles will have lost two of their major reasons for existing.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    Same reason people are more likely to buy a pre-built PC than make one, even though building your own PC results in a better machine for less money and is not at all hard to do. Same reason people go to Starbucks even though getting your own espresso machine and making your own lattes saves a ton of money and isn't that hard.

    Never underestimate the appeal of convenience.

    Or the existence of a warranty and support system for manufactured PCs. Lots of people can follow Youtube videos to build that PC, but most of them would be screwed the first time something goes wrong. Tech folks routinely underestimate the ability needed to maintain a PC without some form of dedicated support.

    Cabezone
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    If the cycle holds, the next next-gen wouldn't be happening until 2020 at the earliest, and I can't help thinking that when people say this might be the last generation of consoles as we know them, they might be right. Between phones having games, and the ever-increasing ubiquity of PC/Mac/etc desk/laptops, I can't help wonder where the console honestly fits or will continue to fit in the future. When I listened to Sony's presentation, I saw a lot of ideas about things that felt like stuff I can already do on my computer. Sure, maybe they'll slap together a means of say, streaming your gameplay easier than doing it on PC...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    I've been a lifelong player of games on both console and PC, but I find myself increasingly wondering what the point of a console is, outside of wanting access to the games which aren't released on PC (none of which, I might add, are not released because they cannot function there).

    I've been researching a new computer purchase, and it is interesting that the next generation of Intel processors will have a built-in graphics processor that supposedly rivals mid-range separate cards. Another technology that's in development is wireless video streaming from regular laptops/PCs to computers. Once you get to the point where only the hardest of the hardcore even need to worry about graphics cards and any computer can wirelessly stream games to the living room TV, the consoles will have lost two of their major reasons for existing.

    You can get some fuzziness of distinction there, but PCs still need to be able to do a ton of things that make no sense on consoles. And in doing that ton of things, the experience is necessarily going to be more involved than what you can get away with on a console.

    When was the last time you defragged your 360? Have you made sure to install antivirus software on your PS3? How many times have you reformatted your Wii?

    Very occasionally, a game I'm playing on a console will freeze, or glitch somehow. I have to drag my butt up and turn the system off and turn it back on again. It is a fucking pain, precisely because it is very rare and violates the entire point of the console experience. When that sort of thing happens on a PC, I'm like, "Oh, lame. Oh well."

    Consoles inhabit a different place in our mindspace than PCs. Your point about tech people underestimating how hard it is to maintain a PC is a good one, and I think it applies more generally. A lot of us underestimate how much more difficult it is to game on a PC than on a console.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    shrykeCaveman PawsDarkewolfe
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    Same reason people are more likely to buy a pre-built PC than make one, even though building your own PC results in a better machine for less money and is not at all hard to do. Same reason people go to Starbucks even though getting your own espresso machine and making your own lattes saves a ton of money and isn't that hard.

    Never underestimate the appeal of convenience.

    True. But this last generation of consoles has gotten increasingly less convenient and narrowed the gap between the effort to make PC games work and the effort required to make console ones work. With the addition of installation (and thus hard drive space issues), patches, crash-prone consoles and/or overheating, etc, I feel like if anything it takes less effort for me to game on my PC.

    At least on my PC, 100% of my games are on Steam. I just click the icon and away we go (except for stuff like Skyrim where heavy modding is a thing). On my PS3, I need to boot it up, find the disc, make sure my controllers are charged, hope there isn't a new patch (though I have PS+ now, so that's not an issue)...it's not the way it used to be back in the previous generations.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    Same reason people are more likely to buy a pre-built PC than make one, even though building your own PC results in a better machine for less money and is not at all hard to do. Same reason people go to Starbucks even though getting your own espresso machine and making your own lattes saves a ton of money and isn't that hard.

    Never underestimate the appeal of convenience.

    True. But this last generation of consoles has gotten increasingly less convenient and narrowed the gap between the effort to make PC games work and the effort required to make console ones work. With the addition of installation (and thus hard drive space issues), patches, crash-prone consoles and/or overheating, etc, I feel like if anything it takes less effort for me to game on my PC.

    At least on my PC, 100% of my games are on Steam. I just click the icon and away we go (except for stuff like Skyrim where heavy modding is a thing). On my PS3, I need to boot it up, find the disc, make sure my controllers are charged, hope there isn't a new patch (though I have PS+ now, so that's not an issue)...it's not the way it used to be back in the previous generations.

    I think you might be playing up the inconvenience of the PS3 a little there. You could also say that with your PC you have to boot it up, hope there are no patches, hope your antivirus software doesn't need updates, click away the little notices Windows likes to give you, make sure your internet connection is functioning, hope your wireless mouse doesn't need new batteries, then double click on the icon.

    My experience with the PS3/360/Wii is generally: slide the disk into the console, start playing. Patches are pretty uncommon (and certainly not something you have to worry about even a significant minority of the times you go to play), you can set up the system to autoplay on disk insertion if you want, and keep your controllers charged is not exactly a big deal (and would apply just as much to any PC game that used a controller).

    And the install process for PS3 games takes literally no effort. All it means is that you get a longer load screen the first time you play the game.

    Consoles can be complicated things that allow you to do all sorts of things and require some organization and setup. They can also be really simple things that you just slide a disk in and play. PCs have a much more significant minimum effort required to use and maintain.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • AllforceAllforce Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The problem is convincing most families to shove a PC in their entertainment center and have a keyboard and mouse on the coffee table. I'm not going to do that because I don't feel like a PC in the living room is appropriate due to all the other avenues it allows access to, and I'm someone who is interested in a HTPC.

    Allforce on
    Gethdporowski
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Allforce wrote: »
    The problem is convincing most families to shove a PC in their entertainment center and have a keyboard and mouse on the coffee table. I'm not going to do that because I don't feel like a PC in the living room is appropriate due to all the other avenues it allows access to, and I'm someone who is interested in a HTPC.

    I'm thinking more of a world where the PC/laptop you have to own anyway can easily stream games wirelessly to your TV from anywhere in the house, and the only purchase you need to make is a controller, since the graphics chip on the CPU can handle pretty much anything that a console can. It's less that people will flock to PCs for gaming, and more of a world where gaming becomes so easy on a PC that there's no reason to shell out for an extra peripheral.

    The iPad is actually a good example of this. Very few people buy iPad for gaming, but gaming is huge there because people already have a device and all they need to put a game on it is push a button or two.

    Phillishere on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    None of those PC concerns come up for me. My PC is always on, my mouse and gamepad are wired, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is inconvenient, just that the days of "consoles are great because you just sit down and play" are gone, and that the "Oh shit, which IRQ am I using twice?" days of PC gaming are also gone, making both experiences more inline with each other.

    edit: As long as my PS3 or similar can play my movies and stream shit from my computer across the room, it's never going anywhere. Both are pretty much a necessity still at this point.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If the cycle holds, the next next-gen wouldn't be happening until 2020 at the earliest, and I can't help thinking that when people say this might be the last generation of consoles as we know them, they might be right. Between phones having games, and the ever-increasing ubiquity of PC/Mac/etc desk/laptops, I can't help wonder where the console honestly fits or will continue to fit in the future. When I listened to Sony's presentation, I saw a lot of ideas about things that felt like stuff I can already do on my computer. Sure, maybe they'll slap together a means of say, streaming your gameplay easier than doing it on PC...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    I've been a lifelong player of games on both console and PC, but I find myself increasingly wondering what the point of a console is, outside of wanting access to the games which aren't released on PC (none of which, I might add, are not released because they cannot function there).

    I've been researching a new computer purchase, and it is interesting that the next generation of Intel processors will have a built-in graphics processor that supposedly rivals mid-range separate cards. Another technology that's in development is wireless video streaming from regular laptops/PCs to computers. Once you get to the point where only the hardest of the hardcore even need to worry about graphics cards and any computer can wirelessly stream games to the living room TV, the consoles will have lost two of their major reasons for existing.

    You can get some fuzziness of distinction there, but PCs still need to be able to do a ton of things that make no sense on consoles. And in doing that ton of things, the experience is necessarily going to be more involved than what you can get away with on a console.

    When was the last time you defragged your 360? Have you made sure to install antivirus software on your PS3? How many times have you reformatted your Wii?

    Very occasionally, a game I'm playing on a console will freeze, or glitch somehow. I have to drag my butt up and turn the system off and turn it back on again. It is a fucking pain, precisely because it is very rare and violates the entire point of the console experience. When that sort of thing happens on a PC, I'm like, "Oh, lame. Oh well."

    Consoles inhabit a different place in our mindspace than PCs. Your point about tech people underestimating how hard it is to maintain a PC is a good one, and I think it applies more generally. A lot of us underestimate how much more difficult it is to game on a PC than on a console.

    I made the point in another post, but it really does seem like the PC industry is developing chips and hardware to make it a lot easier to game on them. There will always be a niche hardcore market that wants to push the envelope, but consoles today have clamped down the cutting-edge for awhile. You cut out the need for any average gamers to buy dedicated graphics cards or hook their PC directly to the TV, and you have gone a long way toward making gaming just another thing people do with the computers they already own.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    None of those PC concerns come up for me. My PC is always on, my mouse and gamepad are wired, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is inconvenient, just that the days of "consoles are great because you just sit down and play" are gone, and that the "Oh shit, which IRQ am I using twice?" days of PC gaming are also gone, making both experiences more inline with each other.

    edit: As long as my PS3 or similar can play my movies and stream shit from my computer across the room, it's never going anywhere. Both are pretty much a necessity still at this point.

    I've got a Mac Mini hooked to my TV. It's a great, seamless little media machine but useless for games. From what I've read of the new Intel PC and mobile processors, the bog standard out-of-the-box processors are going to have powerful enough GPUs to match either of the next gen consoles.

    When I can hook up a tiny PC to my TV, set up a wireless controller with a few clicks and then play and mod virtually any Steam game, I no longer have a need for a console. I'm a minority there, but the way Steam and the success of the iGames is pushing PC manufacturers to look at building mass market machines that can handle gaming, I don't know that I'm that far ahead of the curve.

  • dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    Same reason people are more likely to buy a pre-built PC than make one, even though building your own PC results in a better machine for less money and is not at all hard to do. Same reason people go to Starbucks even though getting your own espresso machine and making your own lattes saves a ton of money and isn't that hard.

    Never underestimate the appeal of convenience.

    True. But this last generation of consoles has gotten increasingly less convenient and narrowed the gap between the effort to make PC games work and the effort required to make console ones work. With the addition of installation (and thus hard drive space issues), patches, crash-prone consoles and/or overheating, etc, I feel like if anything it takes less effort for me to game on my PC.

    At least on my PC, 100% of my games are on Steam. I just click the icon and away we go (except for stuff like Skyrim where heavy modding is a thing). On my PS3, I need to boot it up, find the disc, make sure my controllers are charged, hope there isn't a new patch (though I have PS+ now, so that's not an issue)...it's not the way it used to be back in the previous generations.

    I never have to upgrade a console, never have to maintain it, never have to worry about a (as said) virus, malware, etc, updates are automatic and require simply "press ok" when I put the game in. For the lifetime of the hardware, every game will work, period, 100%, with no input from me other than "eh, do I wanna install that to the HD?"

    Computers are bitchin', but they just can't do that for me, which is fine. I'm trading capability for ease of use.

    JusticeforPluto
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    None of those PC concerns come up for me. My PC is always on, my mouse and gamepad are wired, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is inconvenient, just that the days of "consoles are great because you just sit down and play" are gone, and that the "Oh shit, which IRQ am I using twice?" days of PC gaming are also gone, making both experiences more inline with each other.

    edit: As long as my PS3 or similar can play my movies and stream shit from my computer across the room, it's never going anywhere. Both are pretty much a necessity still at this point.

    I think the success of Steam and the iStore have shown PC manufacturers that they left a lot of money on the table by not finding ways to make gaming easier for the casual market. And with the crash in prices for desktops and laptops since consoles were first introduced, it does feel like the need for a separate gaming device might soon be soon as archaic.

    And if anything could fuel that happening, it is the console developers starting to strongarm customers with monopoly tactics like restricting used gaming or requiring more invasive DRM schemes. They are acting like they are the only game in town right at the moment when the entire gaming ecosystem is expanding past them.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    dporowski wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    Same reason people are more likely to buy a pre-built PC than make one, even though building your own PC results in a better machine for less money and is not at all hard to do. Same reason people go to Starbucks even though getting your own espresso machine and making your own lattes saves a ton of money and isn't that hard.

    Never underestimate the appeal of convenience.

    True. But this last generation of consoles has gotten increasingly less convenient and narrowed the gap between the effort to make PC games work and the effort required to make console ones work. With the addition of installation (and thus hard drive space issues), patches, crash-prone consoles and/or overheating, etc, I feel like if anything it takes less effort for me to game on my PC.

    At least on my PC, 100% of my games are on Steam. I just click the icon and away we go (except for stuff like Skyrim where heavy modding is a thing). On my PS3, I need to boot it up, find the disc, make sure my controllers are charged, hope there isn't a new patch (though I have PS+ now, so that's not an issue)...it's not the way it used to be back in the previous generations.

    I never have to upgrade a console, never have to maintain it, never have to worry about a (as said) virus, malware, etc, updates are automatic and require simply "press ok" when I put the game in. For the lifetime of the hardware, every game will work, period, 100%, with no input from me other than "eh, do I wanna install that to the HD?"

    Computers are bitchin', but they just can't do that for me, which is fine. I'm trading capability for ease of use.

    At least during this generation, I've had 3 consoles die on me, and only one computer.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    None of those PC concerns come up for me. My PC is always on, my mouse and gamepad are wired, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is inconvenient, just that the days of "consoles are great because you just sit down and play" are gone, and that the "Oh shit, which IRQ am I using twice?" days of PC gaming are also gone, making both experiences more inline with each other.

    edit: As long as my PS3 or similar can play my movies and stream shit from my computer across the room, it's never going anywhere. Both are pretty much a necessity still at this point.

    I've got a Mac Mini hooked to my TV. It's a great, seamless little media machine but useless for games. From what I've read of the new Intel PC and mobile processors, the bog standard out-of-the-box processors are going to have powerful enough GPUs to match either of the next gen consoles.

    When I can hook up a tiny PC to my TV, set up a wireless controller with a few clicks and then play and mod virtually any Steam game, I no longer have a need for a console. I'm a minority there, but the way Steam and the success of the iGames is pushing PC manufacturers to look at building mass market machines that can handle gaming, I don't know that I'm that far ahead of the curve.

    There isn't any permutation of Haswell that will match the GPUs in the new Sony/MS consoles. Whoever told you that was wrong.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    None of those PC concerns come up for me. My PC is always on, my mouse and gamepad are wired, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is inconvenient, just that the days of "consoles are great because you just sit down and play" are gone, and that the "Oh shit, which IRQ am I using twice?" days of PC gaming are also gone, making both experiences more inline with each other.

    edit: As long as my PS3 or similar can play my movies and stream shit from my computer across the room, it's never going anywhere. Both are pretty much a necessity still at this point.

    I've got a Mac Mini hooked to my TV. It's a great, seamless little media machine but useless for games. From what I've read of the new Intel PC and mobile processors, the bog standard out-of-the-box processors are going to have powerful enough GPUs to match either of the next gen consoles.

    When I can hook up a tiny PC to my TV, set up a wireless controller with a few clicks and then play and mod virtually any Steam game, I no longer have a need for a console. I'm a minority there, but the way Steam and the success of the iGames is pushing PC manufacturers to look at building mass market machines that can handle gaming, I don't know that I'm that far ahead of the curve.

    There isn't any permutation of Haswell that will match the GPUs in the new Sony/MS consoles. Whoever told you that was wrong.

    What would they be equivalent to? I'd be quite happy with "slightly better than current gen."

  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    I'd like to put in the research and relatively small amount of money required to put together an HTPC that can do everything consoles can and more... for now though it is the convenience thing - knowing that games will work when I buy them, oh and the ability to resell my old games is pretty big; I'm more likely to buy a game new if I figure I can sell it on once I'm done with it. That's not open to me on PC, although the lower price usually reflects that.

    I'll have to reevaluate once the new consoles come out and all the chicken-littling about always-on-DRM or not playing used games gets settled.

  • dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    dporowski wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ...but is ease of use going to sell consoles?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    Same reason people are more likely to buy a pre-built PC than make one, even though building your own PC results in a better machine for less money and is not at all hard to do. Same reason people go to Starbucks even though getting your own espresso machine and making your own lattes saves a ton of money and isn't that hard.

    Never underestimate the appeal of convenience.

    True. But this last generation of consoles has gotten increasingly less convenient and narrowed the gap between the effort to make PC games work and the effort required to make console ones work. With the addition of installation (and thus hard drive space issues), patches, crash-prone consoles and/or overheating, etc, I feel like if anything it takes less effort for me to game on my PC.

    At least on my PC, 100% of my games are on Steam. I just click the icon and away we go (except for stuff like Skyrim where heavy modding is a thing). On my PS3, I need to boot it up, find the disc, make sure my controllers are charged, hope there isn't a new patch (though I have PS+ now, so that's not an issue)...it's not the way it used to be back in the previous generations.

    I never have to upgrade a console, never have to maintain it, never have to worry about a (as said) virus, malware, etc, updates are automatic and require simply "press ok" when I put the game in. For the lifetime of the hardware, every game will work, period, 100%, with no input from me other than "eh, do I wanna install that to the HD?"

    Computers are bitchin', but they just can't do that for me, which is fine. I'm trading capability for ease of use.

    At least during this generation, I've had 3 consoles die on me, and only one computer.

    And mine's been fine. Okay, I had an RROD, and the power brick exploded, but it's an original 360, so meh. In that same time, I've gone through 5 video cards across various computers, 2-3 logic boards, and I have no idea how many destroyed sticks of memory. And this includes two iMacs, which I just take to Apple and say "FIX IT."


    By comparison, my 360 is the rock of frickin' Gibraltar.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    Jesus. 5 fucking video cards in 7 years?

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    None of those PC concerns come up for me. My PC is always on, my mouse and gamepad are wired, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is inconvenient, just that the days of "consoles are great because you just sit down and play" are gone, and that the "Oh shit, which IRQ am I using twice?" days of PC gaming are also gone, making both experiences more inline with each other.

    edit: As long as my PS3 or similar can play my movies and stream shit from my computer across the room, it's never going anywhere. Both are pretty much a necessity still at this point.

    I've got a Mac Mini hooked to my TV. It's a great, seamless little media machine but useless for games. From what I've read of the new Intel PC and mobile processors, the bog standard out-of-the-box processors are going to have powerful enough GPUs to match either of the next gen consoles.

    When I can hook up a tiny PC to my TV, set up a wireless controller with a few clicks and then play and mod virtually any Steam game, I no longer have a need for a console. I'm a minority there, but the way Steam and the success of the iGames is pushing PC manufacturers to look at building mass market machines that can handle gaming, I don't know that I'm that far ahead of the curve.

    There isn't any permutation of Haswell that will match the GPUs in the new Sony/MS consoles. Whoever told you that was wrong.

    What would they be equivalent to? I'd be quite happy with "slightly better than current gen."

    In PC terms, it is probably going to be a low-end part. I'd say somewhere around the WiiU's GPU maybe.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    None of those PC concerns come up for me. My PC is always on, my mouse and gamepad are wired, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is inconvenient, just that the days of "consoles are great because you just sit down and play" are gone, and that the "Oh shit, which IRQ am I using twice?" days of PC gaming are also gone, making both experiences more inline with each other.

    edit: As long as my PS3 or similar can play my movies and stream shit from my computer across the room, it's never going anywhere. Both are pretty much a necessity still at this point.

    I've got a Mac Mini hooked to my TV. It's a great, seamless little media machine but useless for games. From what I've read of the new Intel PC and mobile processors, the bog standard out-of-the-box processors are going to have powerful enough GPUs to match either of the next gen consoles.

    When I can hook up a tiny PC to my TV, set up a wireless controller with a few clicks and then play and mod virtually any Steam game, I no longer have a need for a console. I'm a minority there, but the way Steam and the success of the iGames is pushing PC manufacturers to look at building mass market machines that can handle gaming, I don't know that I'm that far ahead of the curve.

    There isn't any permutation of Haswell that will match the GPUs in the new Sony/MS consoles. Whoever told you that was wrong.

    What would they be equivalent to? I'd be quite happy with "slightly better than current gen."

    In PC terms, it is probably going to be a low-end part. I'd say somewhere around the WiiU's GPU maybe.

    Interesting. Some of the review I read placed it more at the line of the mid-level solo graphics cards - something to do with the way data transfers between the memory, CPU and GPU drastically increasing the speed and capability of the chips beyond what the raw specs would suggest.

    I doubt we'll know for sure until the chips get into production and benchmarked.

  • dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Jesus. 5 fucking video cards in 7 years?

    Yep! Video cards haaaaaaaaate me. This is between Windows boxes and Macs, both ATI and NVidia, so I'm not even playing platform-favorites here.


    It's a reason that I'm pretty convinced that whichever console is most "just works" appliance style is going to get me this generation. Carryover of my Live account and purchased content is another consideration, of course, but what I want is literally a box I can plug in, not interact with, and have Always Go with a minimum of fuss.

    dporowski on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    All consoles should have a "turn on at 3 am and update everything necessary" function built in, which would alleviate some of these problems.

  • dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    All consoles should have a "turn on at 3 am and update everything necessary" function built in, which would alleviate some of these problems.

    I'd dig that. To me though, other than maybe a quarterly system update, the 360 is effectively hassle-free on that front. Pop in game, fire it up, it says "hey gotta update", and I'm done in 30s.

    What I'd really like is a "get everything in the background" or remote-start feature. Log in to the web store, grab some DLC from work, and the download starts right then so it's done when I get home. I'd consider that a driver for my platform choice, honestly.

    Moridin889
Sign In or Register to comment.