X Box, the future of PCs

[Dystopian Dreamer]

I've been thinking about this for the last while and a bit.

Much has been said about how the X Box is really just a PC that was designed to excel at running games.

I've also noted something else about it. It's really a stable platform. I've sat at it for hours on end, playing games and whatnot, and it has never crashed on me*.

I think this stability has much to do with the X Box running on a consistent hardware platform. This would take a lot of the guess work out of making the software/hardware interactions work smoothly.

The Xbox can also go online via Xbox Live (I don't know much about this service and it's capabilities though, as I've yet to use it.)

And It's very conceivable that the Xbox could also be able to run programs other then games on it. And also be made to support other hardware, like a keyboard.

So, whats to stop the Xbox (or rather the grandchildren of the Xbox since this generation has probably hit the end of the line) from becoming full fledge computers?

Really, all that would need to be added to make the Xbox a full home computer as well as a top of the line game system would be a mouse/keyboard, and some office (accounting, word processing, etc.) and web surfing applications.

Does anyone see this happening? Why/why not?

Dystopian Dreamer

*Ok, it has crashed on me twice, but not while running games. I was using the DVD feature to go through a music vedio frame by frame. This crashed the Xbox once. I also managed to crash several DVD players this way, and my friends MAC. It seems DVDs in general just don't like to be rappidly advanced frame by frame for long periods. The other time it crashed was when the side of the unit was hit and (I assume) the disk sorta got mis-aligned. Popped it out, rebooted, and it worked fine again.

[Jais]

My PC has yet to crash on me, and I've had it for over 2 years now.

I wouldn't mind a better platform to play games on, but until you can get as good a FPS and RTS experience on the consoles, I'm not budging.

[Balthazor]

Does anyone see this happening? Why/why not?


People have been seeing this happening since the Atari days, but it has yet to actually happen.

Part of the reason is because as you move consoles closer to the PC paradigm, or vice-versa, you end up simply reinventing the wheel. An Xbox is an Xbox instead of a PC because it doesn't have to do all the things a PC does. If you begin moving the Xbox towards doing all the things a PC does, you end up with a PC.

[Jeremy Cole]

Part of the savings on consoles is viewing them on a TV screen. If the console was to run internet and word processing stuff, you'd quickly see text on a television screen looks like ass.

The alternative is to sell a monitor as well, but then you really are selling a PC, and aren't going to be priced that much cheaper.

This might change with all the swanky digital tellies, but I don't know.

[s/LaSH]

Convergence - the amalgamation of different niches into one device. It seems like a sensible idea on the surface. But there are issues.

Good issues:

Consoles are extremely cheap compared to PCs, often in an effort to get people to buy them below cost and then make money off game sales. I could see Microsoft taking a similar approach in giving away PCs in order to profit off word-processor sales.

Consoles have standardised hardware. You make something for XPC, it'll run on the XPC and everyone will have the same experience.

Bad issues:

Consoles are weaker than PCs. Not by much, when they come out, but the gap increases and increases as PC product revolutions happen every 6 months or so, and console revolutions happen every 3-5 years. That's a lot of time in the computing world; PCs coming out at the end of a console cycle will put the current consoles to shame, and compete favourably with the next generation. This means a console product spends a lot of time being obsolete.

PCs tend to do a lot more in terms of user-created content. Consoles don't have to compile C++ code and test-run it - they don't have to deal with high-resolution image manipulation - they restrict the actions of the developers, not the users. I'm not sure how important this would be in practice, but it is important.

A lot of PC users like to mix-and-match parts. I've lost track of the number of hard drives I've helped transplant just on a whim, and swapping RAM sticks is quite common too. Some people just don't need certain features, and really want others. Paying a lot for a box with a superpowerful audio/video engine is good if you like gaming, but if you don't like that and want to run intense image manipulation instead, and the box doesn't have an accelerator for that, what good is it to you? You've just bought a sports car when you wanted a tractor - it can do the job, but it's a waste of everybody's time.

And, of course, consoles are restricted to TV output. It's nice - TV screens are bigger than all but the most extreme computer monitors. But it's restricted - most TV screens are blurry and low-resolution compared to PC monitors. Simple word processing would be painful to see on a TV screen - what's the smallest writing you've seen on such a screen? And what special-legibility font were they using? The blurry, low resolution lets console games look smooth and act fast, and that's OK. But a PC screen is sharp, and PC software needs sharpness.

I think the convergence will happen one day, but it'll be a day when hi-res TV screens (or optic/neural interface displays) are as commonplace as the telephone. And what we think of as computers and consoles will be very different. I haven't really followed Bill Gates' thoughts, but apparently, 10-20 years down the line we'll have computers that really work...

[Bigwood]

It won't happen becasue console manufacturers are moving towards not including a hard drive. If anything, they'll move towards being dumb terminals remotely connected to a network, which I don't think will go over well for people that use their computers to say, balance their checkbook. Having that information stored remotely isn't really appealing.

[Dystopian Dreamer]

Part of the savings on consoles is viewing them on a TV screen. If the console was to run internet and word processing stuff, you'd quickly see text on a television screen looks like ass.

Once Hi Defininition TVs become the norm, this problem will be reduced. Though there may be a problem with doing your average word processing on a 27" TV, I'm sure things can be adjusted to compensate for the output device.

Consoles are weaker than PCs. Not by much, when they come out, but the gap increases and increases as PC product revolutions happen every 6 months or so, and console revolutions happen every 3-5 years. That's a lot of time in the computing world

Less and less relevent as time goes by. Things are getting faster and faster, but we'll notice it less and less. Say an operation takes a minute to perform. That's your base line. Then something new comes along and can perform the same operation in a second. That's a massive improvment. The operation can be compleated in 1/60th of the time, for a very noticeable improvement. Now, say the next generation moves it from a second to a milisecond. That's 1/1000th of the time. You'd notice it, and things go much faster. But is it as noticeable an improvement from 1 minute to 1 second? Nope. Going up the scale, the operation takes only a fraction of the time, but the improvements become less and less noticable.

Of course, to a degree, we now use operations that are more comlex and take more time to preform. But we are reaching a plateau. And once we hit that plateau product life can become longer. Hell, I know a lot of people who are still using thier stereo equipment from the 80's. It was cutting edge at the time, sure, but it's still good today. Not too many people can tell the difference between A good stereo from the 80's and your average one from now. Now compare a good Computer from the 80's to your average one now and it will look comic. Diminishing returns.

I built my computer close to 4 years ago, while I was a straving college student. It wasn't anywhere near top of the line then, and by now it's a relic. But you know what? It still suits my needs just fine. It can play music and video flawlessly, and is great for doing things online with. And of course it handles office apps just fine. That's all I need it to do. Except for one thing. It doesn't play the new games well. But for that I use my Game Cube and my X Box.

PCs tend to do a lot more in terms of user-created content. Consoles don't have to compile C++ code and test-run it - they don't have to deal with high-resolution image manipulation - they restrict the actions of the developers, not the users

Not too many people use thier home computers for this sort of thing. Sure, there'll always be a segment, but most people are content just using the computer for the same few applications, and forwarding the last joke they got in thier inbox to all thier friends.

A lot of PC users like to mix-and-match parts.

Ok, a lot, but still a small minority. Most users order a computer form Dell or buy one from Best Buy and never change anything in it. Hell, I've only done a few upgrades on that four year computer I mentioned above. Gave it a CD burner when I could afford one, stuck in another stick of RAM, gave it a new Hard Drive when the last one died, and put in a wireless nic. Small stuff like this most people will either ask thier neigbour's kid to do it, or will get the tech at best buy to do it. No big deal. I'm not saying that everyone would want a closed system. There will always be people who'll mess around with thier computer. It's just most people are happy to have a working system that meets thier needs and then leave it like it is.

Dystopian Dreamer

[J Arcane]

Consoles are weaker than PCs. Not by much, when they come out, but the gap increases and increases as PC product revolutions happen every 6 months or so, and console revolutions happen every 3-5 years. That's a lot of time in the computing world; PCs coming out at the end of a console cycle will put the current consoles to shame, and compete favourably with the next generation. This means a console product spends a lot of time being obsolete.

Of course the reason why the hardware is having to constantly update, is because of lazy programmers who have come to take advantage of that curve, instead of optimizing their code for the present generation.

The XBOX for instance, is in many cases running the same game as well as the equivalent PC version, and just as well. THis is partly because of the hardware being tuned for it, but partly because the programmers are actually forced to optomize for the present hardware.

PCs tend to do a lot more in terms of user-created content.

I wholly disagree with this. In my mind, PCs have actually gone backwards in this sense. THings like music software, image editing, and programming software, are being driven up in price at insane rates, because the software companies really don't like the idea of the end user being able to just make-their-own, instead of giving them wads of cash.

Once upon a time, ever computer came with at least one built-in programming language. Now, no computer comes with one, and users are expected to fork over 3 and 4 digit sums for the privledge of writing programs themselves.

A lot of PC users like to mix-and-match parts.

As DD pointed out, this isn't really true for the majority of users, who just buy some black-box system from Dell or wherever, and really wouldn't notice the difference at all.

I'd personally like to see machines with sort of cartridge-like slots for certain vital components, like RAM, CPU, and HD, that allow easy upgrade in the future, thus providing a little extra life for the system, and more value for the consumer in the long run.

The console industry has come close a few times, with things like the N64 expansion pak, the PS2's HD and network add-ons, as well as several similar devices for the Dreamcast.

And, of course, consoles are restricted to TV output.

This is a good point here, and one I'll half concede to. I used the web via my Dreamcast for sometime, and was constantly frustrated by the fact that 640x480 just isn't big enough. However, I do think that's partially the fault of web designers, not technology. The vast majority of sites don't really NEED 1024x768, nor do they need to put Flash in every last thing. Why they do still mystifies me.

Similarly, I'm always bothered by the amount of unnecessary screen space eaten up my most applications, especially on Windows machines. It's one of the reasons I respect Macs. IME, in Classic, 640x480 was pretty much always enough for most things, except for web browsing, for the problems I mentioned above.

MY belief, is that the real reason it isn't happening, is that it would step on way too many peoples toes, people with lots and lots of money.

But that's the way it usually is isn't it?

[Good-looking Garou]

I've been thinking about this for the last while and a bit.

Much has been said about how the X Box is really just a PC that was designed to excel at running games.

I've also noted something else about it. It's really a stable platform. I've sat at it for hours on end, playing games and whatnot, and it has never crashed on me*.

I think this stability has much to do with the X Box running on a consistent hardware platform. This would take a lot of the guess work out of making the software/hardware interactions work smoothly.

The Xbox can also go online via Xbox Live (I don't know much about this service and it's capabilities though, as I've yet to use it.)

And It's very conceivable that the Xbox could also be able to run programs other then games on it. And also be made to support other hardware, like a keyboard.

So, whats to stop the Xbox (or rather the grandchildren of the Xbox since this generation has probably hit the end of the line) from becoming full fledge computers?

Really, all that would need to be added to make the Xbox a full home computer as well as a top of the line game system would be a mouse/keyboard, and some office (accounting, word processing, etc.) and web surfing applications.

Does anyone see this happening? Why/why not?

Dystopian Dreamer

*Ok, it has crashed on me twice, but not while running games. I was using the DVD feature to go through a music vedio frame by frame. This crashed the Xbox once. I also managed to crash several DVD players this way, and my friends MAC. It seems DVDs in general just don't like to be rappidly advanced frame by frame for long periods. The other time it crashed was when the side of the unit was hit and (I assume) the disk sorta got mis-aligned. Popped it out, rebooted, and it worked fine again.

That does seem to be what Microsoft and Sony are trying to do with their future consoles, to turn them into 'digital entertainment centers' that do pretty much most things a computer can do as they are both trying to 'dominate the living room'.

[Sixten (away)]

Once upon a time, ever computer came with at least one built-in programming language. Now, no computer comes with one, and users are expected to fork over 3 and 4 digit sums for the privledge of writing programs themselves.

I think you mean "Windows doesn't come with one."

It's awfully hard to get much done on a Linux box without the (free, included) C compiler, and most distros also at least make available a number of other (free) languages and tools.

Every Mac comes with the (free) development tools from Apple. They're not installed by default, but they're on the CDs that come with the OS. And there's also AppleScript Studio for those that don't want to mess with "real" app development.

Not to say that things aren't a little more difficult/complicated than in the days of ROM BASIC on the TI99-4A, or Apple ][, but it's hardly fair to tar every computer with that brush.

[NPC Jeremy]

The Xbox 2 will actually be a Power PC. And it may or may not have a hard drive. From what I've read of it, it's definitely moving away from the PC-light that the Xbox is.

[J Arcane]

I think you mean "Windows doesn't come with one."

It's awfully hard to get much done on a Linux box without the (free, included) C compiler, and most distros also at least make available a number of other (free) languages and tools.

Every Mac comes with the (free) development tools from Apple. They're not installed by default, but they're on the CDs that come with the OS. And there's also AppleScript Studio for those that don't want to mess with "real" app development.

Not to say that things aren't a little more difficult/complicated than in the days of ROM BASIC on the TI99-4A, or Apple ][, but it's hardly fair to tar every computer with that brush.

There is truth here.

Linux is great about that, as are most UNIX systems. Thank Richard Stallman and the GNU project.

And Macs didn't always include programming stuff. They do now, because of Apple's adoption of UNIX as the OS base, but all you used to get was AppleScript, which doesn't really count in my opinion, nor does HyperCard really.

But for the vast majority of users, who use Windows, on PCs, there's no real availability there. There's no, starting small, just running programs, then working your way to penning little programs in Basic, eventually writing massive applications. And doing it all with the software that came with your computer.

And I don't like that at all. Any time the instruments of creativity are yanked from the common grasp, and made hideously overpriced, we lose a little bit of freedom. I have similar feelings about how expensive musical instruments tend to be, or decent art supplies.

[Matthew]

People have been seeing this happening since the Atari days, but it has yet to actually happen.

Part of the reason is because as you move consoles closer to the PC paradigm, or vice-versa, you end up simply reinventing the wheel. An Xbox is an Xbox instead of a PC because it doesn't have to do all the things a PC does. If you begin moving the Xbox towards doing all the things a PC does, you end up with a PC.

Not true. There's no reason an Xbox needs or would benefit from multiple operating systems, or multiple, swappable components.

PC gaming is dying. Has been for about three years now. The Xbox has something to do with it. A significant percentage of Xbox users were previously PC-only gamers.

Really, the only thing keeping the PC in the game is the fact that there are genres that only work on the pc. I imagine if the Xbox2 or 3 wanted to conquer that, it could.

[Quasar]

Really, the only thing keeping the PC in the game is the fact that there are genres that only work on the pc. I imagine if the Xbox2 or 3 wanted to conquer that, it could.

If only they would. Then there would be one less reason for me to be in the PC-upgrading-cycle.

[eliandi]

I wholly disagree with this. In my mind, PCs have actually gone backwards in this sense. THings like music software, image editing, and programming software, are being driven up in price at insane rates, because the software companies really don't like the idea of the end user being able to just make-their-own, instead of giving them wads of cash.


I have to disagree with your disagreement. I have tons of user created material for my PC games. In NWN, I have gig's of custom content, ranging from modules to graphics, and I create adventures from week to week I DM for my players. In Sports Car GT, I've got hundreds of user created cars and I edit the car physics myself to better replicate reality. I used to play in Front Page Sports Football online leagues, and I've got a ton of teams and leagues people have created, and we used to create and share different plays.

When I load new custom content, is it always stable as the original game? ---hell no. It sometimes takes troubleshooting and corresponding with the author, but its worth it. However this type of user anarchy is what the console designers intentionally design out for system stability.

[eliandi]

Less and less relevent as time goes by. Things are getting faster and faster, but we'll notice it less and less. Say an operation takes a minute to perform. That's your base line. Then something new comes along and can perform the same operation in a second. That's a massive improvment. The operation can be compleated in 1/60th of the time, for a very noticeable improvement. Now, say the next generation moves it from a second to a milisecond. That's 1/1000th of the time. You'd notice it, and things go much faster. But is it as noticeable an improvement from 1 minute to 1 second? Nope. Going up the scale, the operation takes only a fraction of the time, but the improvements become less and less noticable.


Your frame of reference is too short, my friend. I've been computing since the dark ages of tape drives (early 80s), and the processing power have increased so many orders of magnitude you would think we would be satiated. I remember thinking my Pentium (100MHz) was going to last a long time, but even with upgrades it laster 5yrs. Our desires keep increasing. More graphics, more sound, more high speed action. Plus bigger internet pipes, streaming video and music, etc etc. Now my 4 yr old Athelon 1.1MHz is getting long-in-the-tooth, even with several upgrades. It certainly aint over, either, as the most recent games are pushing the envelope further. for PCs, blockbuster games drive the upgrade cycle of many people.

Prepacked PCs have been tried before for the mass market and failed, mainly because they could not keep up with computing improvements and the business model relied on razor thin margins. You are correct in saying a significant portion of PC buyers buy Dell or Compac and never upgrade, but the high end parts are high margin.

[Ian ORourke]

PC Gaming is dying, and will continue to die. It may be a slow death, and I'm sure people will continue to do it way down the line in the future - but then people still play wargames, and that is a dead hobby in many ways.

The reason it is dead is gaming will ultimately become a true, mass market entertainment medium like watching a DVD - this is the goal the major players have. They want gaming to become as natural as watching a DVD, or listening to a CD. The gaming device needs to be as simple as the DVD player and the CD player as well. A true, obiquitous consumer electronics device.

This is because all the major players view the 'gaming console' as the device most likely to be the medium to provide the route for 'content' into the home. The next device that sits directly under the TV (and in the future a 'converged' device).

Down the line, it may even come to pass that the idea you could not play PlayStation games on the Xbox or the GameCube will make people laugh. Why? Because we don't worry about who has designed the DVD player we play DVD's on do we?

No. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will eventually. PC gaming is dead, because the video game device will eventually become more like a DVD player or a CD player - just something you buy to play games. The more mass market it all becomes, the less people want complicated PC's.

People still will, but they'll be the weird fringe. It's a bit like people who go for all these weird RPG's, when most people want D&D. Most people are happy with consoles. They don't want custom content, or install routines. blah, blah.

I've never bought a PC game for years.

[Modern Angel]

PC Gaming is dying, and will continue to die. It may be a slow death, and I'm sure people will continue to do it way down the line in the future - but then people still play wargames, and that is a dead hobby in many ways.

The reason it is dead is gaming will ultimately become a true, mass market entertainment medium like watching a DVD - this is the goal the major players have. They want gaming to become as natural as watching a DVD, or listening to a CD. The gaming device needs to be as simple as the DVD player and the CD player as well. A true, obiquitous consumer electronics device.

This is because all the major players view the 'gaming console' as the device most likely to be the medium to provide the route for 'content' into the home. The next device that sits directly under the TV (and in the future a 'converged' device).

Down the line, it may even come to pass that the idea you could not play PlayStation games on the Xbox or the GameCube will make people laugh. Why? Because we don't worry about who has designed the DVD player we play DVD's on do we?

No. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will eventually. PC gaming is dead, because the video game device will eventually become more like a DVD player or a CD player - just something you buy to play games. The more mass market it all becomes, the less people want complicated PC's.

People still will, but they'll be the weird fringe. It's a bit like people who go for all these weird RPG's, when most people want D&D. Most people are happy with consoles. They don't want custom content, or install routines. blah, blah.

I've never bought a PC game for years.


I may have to ask the developers of Battlefield 1942, The Sims, NWN, Warcraft 3, Everquest, etc, etc if PC gaming is dying.

Is it as lucrative as console gaming? No. It's not going to die, either. Why? Because console gaming is the field which is in trouble.

Console gaming is about to hit a wall. There are only so many clones of the exact same platfomer which can come out before people stop buying. We saw it a bit this past Christmas, when I was working at Gamestop for some extra cash. Sales were down in almost every section of the country. Part of that is the economy, but that's not the whole story. There are tons of people, both in the industry and out, who see it coming. They've written articles and published sales figures. They're available with a quick google search.

Combine the distinct lack of creativity with the rise of the bean counters and you have a situation which is far, far too much like the music industry in the mid to late nineties. Nobody thought that bubble would burst, either.

PC games will never sell as much as console games but to call its death now? It's still lucrative and people have been predicting the death of PC gaming since 1988. It's just not going to happen.

[Ian ORourke]

PC games will never sell as much as console games but to call its death now? It's still lucrative and people have been predicting the death of PC gaming since 1988. It's just not going to happen.

We can agree to disagree, obviously. I didn't call it's death, I said it's dying. I'm not saying it going to disappear. Role-playing is a lot less popular but it hasn't died. Wargaming is even less popular but it hasn't died.

It'll just become less and less relevent. We can check back in ten years or so :)

[thele]

The Xbox 2 will actually be a Power PC. And it may or may not have a hard drive. From what I've read of it, it's definitely moving away from the PC-light that the Xbox is.

I've actually heard some conflicting reports. The last I heard, they have no desire to have a harddrive because currently some 95% of xbox-1 games are not using the harddive right now.

However, they do want to be able to play PC software on the xbox 2. But you can't really do that effectively without a harddrive... so go fig.

One official announcement that DID come in -- Xbox2 will not be able to play Xbox1 games.

`Le

[Matthew]

I may have to ask the developers of Battlefield 1942, The Sims, NWN, Warcraft 3, Everquest, etc, etc if PC gaming is dying.


They'll tell you: yes. This isn't a matter of opion, there's data.

[s/LaSH]

There's one thing PC gaming offers that console gaming doesn't.

Mods.

No console has ever provided the level of support or technical know-how to produce a CounterStrike phenomenon. The function simply isn't there without a great deal of hacking, and then it's probably illegal.

It's possible, even probable, that mass-market games will shift over to consoles. But there will always be people who like to do things - to create, not consume. These are typically people in the know, and I imagine they're the kind of person who also likes tailoring their PC parts.

So perhaps we'll see a schism in coming year - gamers will pick up stuff on their consoles, creators will sit back on their PCs, and bit by bit, PCs will become exclusive business tools, places where entertainment is created rather than experienced.

Hmm.

[soru]

In an ideal world, there would be:

1. game consoles, sub $200, replaced every 3-5 years.

2. 'Xbox office', built in Word/Excel etc., no games, no installing new software versions, you want an upgrade you buy this years model. sub $300. Replaced every 5-10 years.

3. Linux/NT, $800+, replaced every 2 years.

Right now, the majority of users are trying to struggle along and play games/edit documents on what are basically hobbyist/developer machines, as ridiculous as if everyone had to commute into work on child's tricycles or experimental prototype airtcars. Meanwhile developers and hobbyists are stuck with exactly the same thing in the opposite direction.

soru

[Modern Angel]

Well, let's take a quick peek at why nobody should want PC gaming going away or being phased into the console/Xbox market.

1) PC gaming is the last bastion for independant/small developers and publishers. Subtracting the console makers (Sony/MS/Nintendo) there are, realistically, maybe six publishers who publish for consoles. That squeezes creativity in the same way having six major labels does in the music industry.

2) Console games, with their set hardware, can only push the technological envelope as far as the console makers will allow them to. If there were no PC gaming, there would be no Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 until the next-gen systems. Conversely, if I wanted a game which didn't push system specs, I wouldn't be able to get those, either. I have the control with my PC to dictate what games I play and how they're played which is something I can't do on a console.

That's not to say that I don't like console gaming; I do. I think, however, that there's a thread of thought which posits that the future of video games is much brighter without those bulky and expensive PCs as dead weight.

I think that's a very, very short-sighted view. Console gaming is moving in exactly the wrong direction it should be and, without PC gaming as a training ground for maverick programmers willing to try new things, it would be even worse.

I'll be honest: I fear for the future of video games. Not their sales but the creativity nominally driving their creation. The parallels with the music industry are just too great. No longer are games driven by visionaries and people who love games but by bean counters who are far more concerned with a quarterly profit. That's why you see unfinished pieces of garbage like Driver 3 being squeezed out just in time to boost the quarterly numbers. Saleswise, things are healthy but I promise the bubble is going to burst in the not too distant future.

[Bigwood]

All of the points you mention, Angel, are things publishers are in favor of. And publishers are the ones that (primarily) fund the industry. And some of those publishers manufacture their own consoles, and would like less competition for their consoles, and they'd like to spend less money for one game by not having to port it from one to the other.

And mods do not generate any money, historically. Counter-Strike is the only mod I know of that has actually driven sales of the game it was a mod of, Half-Life. So publishers will not consider mods a good thing; they in fact create customer support headaches.

Publishers like, and will therefore pay for, what they can best control. The only real holdout I see for PC gaming is in MMOs, and their design is pretty much static. And the market is getting more cluttered every day.

[Cessna]

Mods may not generate money directly, but I can't help but think that they're important to a game. One of the major factors that will determine if I buy a game is how well supported it is and what sort of community is playing it, and mods are a good litmus test.

[Bahama'at]

My PC has yet to crash on me, and I've had it for over 2 years now.

I wouldn't mind a better platform to play games on, but until you can get as good a FPS and RTS experience on the consoles, I'm not budging.One year and two major upgrades later - the only problems I have ever had were due to my own mistakes in formatting the hardrives during a reinstall.

- Ma'at

[Ian ORourke]

Mods may not generate money directly, but I can't help but think that they're important to a game. One of the major factors that will determine if I buy a game is how well supported it is and what sort of community is playing it, and mods are a good litmus test.

Yeah, but you're weird :)

[Cessna]

Yeah, but you're weird :)


I'd say that the PC game industry is moving towards supporting Mods more than ever. Just off the top of my head:

- many flight sims have built in mod/skin support; texture files are easily accessable for users to play with.

- Battlefield Vietnam comes with a map and skin editor for modding included with the game.

- UT2K4 - the DVD version - comes with tutorials on how to produce mods.

In fact, I can't think of a game I've bought within the past year that doesn't support modding in some way...

[Modern Angel]

All of the points you mention, Angel, are things publishers are in favor of. And publishers are the ones that (primarily) fund the industry. And some of those publishers manufacture their own consoles, and would like less competition for their consoles, and they'd like to spend less money for one game by not having to port it from one to the other.

And mods do not generate any money, historically. Counter-Strike is the only mod I know of that has actually driven sales of the game it was a mod of, Half-Life. So publishers will not consider mods a good thing; they in fact create customer support headaches.

Publishers like, and will therefore pay for, what they can best control. The only real holdout I see for PC gaming is in MMOs, and their design is pretty much static. And the market is getting more cluttered every day.

Sure, publishers support it. And Eminem and Dr. Dre do their damndest to keep rappers they don't like off of their label. That doesn't mean either is good for their respective industries.

Publishers would love to consolidate the market. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that the day that happens, just like Amtrak, the record industry, the American steel industry, is the day that video games wither on the vine creatively.

I'd argue you're already seeing that withering in console gaming. For every Ninja Gaiden there are ten Malices and Enter the Matrixes (or Matrices. Huh.) Consolidation will be very, very bad for the industry.

[Ian ORourke]

I'd say that the PC game industry is moving towards supporting Mods more than ever.

Yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong. When I say weird I mean weird in the sense that most of the people who post here are 'weird' in the context of the rpg market as a whole.

I think the whole mods thing is the computer equivalent of that, more money being involved aside.

As someone who plays NWN a lot DM'ed, I have no problems with modding as 'user content' as a worthwhile activity. NWN, is infact, the only PC game I've bought and played for years. And I'm not into the modding, I'm just a vapid consumer when it comes to games :)

[Good-looking Garou]

I hope PC gaming doesn't die out since I mostly tend to enjoy them more than console games. However, I haven't spent anywhere near as much for PC games this year so far compared to previous years. Partly because my PC is now pretty much outdated if I want to play the latest games, and also the choices and availability of games I'm interested in (CRPGs and Adventure games) have become seriously sparse.

[Bigwood]

I'd say that the PC game industry is moving towards supporting Mods more than ever. Just off the top of my head:

- many flight sims have built in mod/skin support; texture files are easily accessable for users to play with.

- Battlefield Vietnam comes with a map and skin editor for modding included with the game.

- UT2K4 - the DVD version - comes with tutorials on how to produce mods.

In fact, I can't think of a game I've bought within the past year that doesn't support modding in some way...They are doing so because they have to have a strong presence in that small sector of PC gaming that cares about mods, otherwise they will, as has been pointed out, wither away completely. Most games support mods in some form, yes; but the cast majority of people who play these games never see them. Most people don't even know what a mod is, let alone how to find, install, and use one. Only those that are hardcore into any particular game in the first place are going to make or play mods, and the casual gaming market is where the money is. Niche markets aren't worth it.


Sure, publishers support it. And Eminem and Dr. Dre do their damndest to keep rappers they don't like off of their label. That doesn't mean either is good for their respective industries.

Publishers would love to consolidate the market. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that the day that happens, just like Amtrak, the record industry, the American steel industry, is the day that video games wither on the vine creatively.

I'd argue you're already seeing that withering in console gaming. For every Ninja Gaiden there are ten Malices and Enter the Matrixes (or Matrices. Huh.) Consolidation will be very, very bad for the industry.I agree with you wholeheartedly; almost as a rule, publishers getting what they want is very bad. But you know something? They don't care about the games. They don't care about the industry. They don't care about creativity, they actively dislike it for the most part. They want a rehash of what sold before. They couldn't care less if a game is good or shitty, as long as it sells. And the sad fact is, shitty console games can still outsell good PC games. Hell, count the number of people on this very board that think Halo is a landmark of quality. It's a mediocre FPS at best, repetetive and unchallenging, but in a market that had nothing to compare it to it was amazing.

In short, there is a withering of creativity in the industry as a whole going on. But consoles are more profitable, so publishers will turn their support that way. And creativity costs too much anyway.

[Balthazor]

Not true. There's no reason an Xbox needs or would benefit from multiple operating systems, or multiple, swappable components.

PC gaming is dying. Has been for about three years now. The Xbox has something to do with it. A significant percentage of Xbox users were previously PC-only gamers.

Really, the only thing keeping the PC in the game is the fact that there are genres that only work on the pc. I imagine if the Xbox2 or 3 wanted to conquer that, it could.

Perhaps I'm suffering an acute case of the stupids, but I'm not seeing where your disagreement has all that much to do with what I'd originally said.

I'd agree that PC gaming is dying, aside perhaps for many of the low-cost niche games, such as the kind of thing you see littering the shelves at most Wal-Marts.

My point was that if you say you're going to take an Xbox and make it so that it replaces the PC, you'd need to make it do all of what a PC does. And in so doing, you'd basically change it from being an Xbox into being just a bargain PC.

If you're talking about consoles replacing PCs strictly in terms of gaming, then I think that's possible. But I just don't see much chance of consoles or console-like systems completely replacing the PC any time soon.

[Good-looking Garou]

If you're talking about consoles replacing PCs strictly in terms of gaming, then I think that's possible. But I just don't see much chance of consoles or console-like systems completely replacing the PC any time soon.

There are some analysts who think that might be possible, that a combo of console/set-top box will eventually be the "new PC".

[Jamie Herbert]

Personally I think it's more likely that both devices will "hybrid" in some way right now PCs are being marketed toward the Digital entertainment center offering the web, DVD office apps and of course games. Consoles are developing along similar lines. in the day the computer could be thought of as the family station wagon (the utility vehicle gets you from point a to point b)while the console was a snowmobile, jetski or motorbike (something you rie just for fun) because of this distinction people have been hard pressed to want to blur the line. (take for example the major failure of most upgrade paripherals avaialble for consoles, (from Coleco's ADAM to the Sega CD/32X fiasco) also the failure of set top multimedia (3do/CDI/VIS) Consolers have been fearful of the complexity of the PC model, yet as more PCs become commonplace and more are forced to deal with them on a daily basis they begin to expect more from thier home console. envious of thing like mods and the customizing features of the PC a new more computer literate culture is demanding these things (such as the hard drives and internet connectivity currently seen in both the Xbox and PS2) and the Microsofts of the world are still looking at ways to give the customer "what he wants" while limiting the experience to it's own degree. look at the way xp has cut down on the average PC user's ability to control his environment. defaulting to MS based technologies (WMA and the like) these deliberate steps are put there to make the path the same for most users. eventually I see that the line between them may become more blurred however I doubt one will ever really replace the other.

[Matthew]

Perhaps I'm suffering an acute case of the stupids, but I'm not seeing where your disagreement has all that much to do with what I'd originally said.

I'd agree that PC gaming is dying, aside perhaps for many of the low-cost niche games, such as the kind of thing you see littering the shelves at most Wal-Marts.

My point was that if you say you're going to take an Xbox and make it so that it replaces the PC, you'd need to make it do all of what a PC does. And in so doing, you'd basically change it from being an Xbox into being just a bargain PC.


No, because a bargian PC comes with a half dozen cards and components compatability for which drives development costs up and therefore reduces profitability.

Xboxen do not. Xboxen win. They are cheaper to develop for. Significantly so. All you need to get PC functionality on an Xbox is a firewire port and a USB port. Now you can have keyboards and mice and CD-rom burners and whatever.

[Dystopian Dreamer]

PC games will never sell as much as console games but to call its death now? It's still lucrative and people have been predicting the death of PC gaming since 1988. It's just not going to happen.


Just got back from vacation, and wanted to make a quick chime in here on this point.

People have been predicting the death of PC gaming since 1988. It's just not going to happen.

I don't see how those two sencences follow.

There's no connection.

It's a flawed jump in logic.

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.

Look at Castro. People have been predicting his death for years, and years. Probably since before 1988. But it hasn't happened. Is that a reason to say it's not going to happen?

Well it hasn't yet. So I believe in the futrue it won't.

And until it happens, no one can say I'm wrong. In fact, since it hasn't happend, you've got to say I'm right. Castro will live forever.

All hail our undead zombie lord cuban dictator Castro.

Or not.

D. Dreamer