[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by 100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja

OK, I'll refrase this a bit. Sure, there are plenty of good/great games on consoles, but for every MGS there's a Splinter's Cell on pc. Almost.

Rephrase that some more
There are many, many, MANY great console games coming from genres that are virtually nonexistant on PCs.

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

PC's are now in over 80% of the US households, consoles are in the 45% range (according to the last figures I've seen).

But how many of those PC's are suitable for games?

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by crabapple

But how many of those PC's are suitable for games?

Well, considering I'm playing all but the latest round of adventures on my 6 1/2 year old Win98se - bought Oct '98, I would guess many to most of them could play games. (I need to get my XP fixed). That's not saying they'd have all the bells and whistles, but if you can bring them into the fold, then they will likely upgrade their PC's to play the latest and greatest.

FGM-Lyn

[100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Rephrase that some more

No, I won't.

[Aj_]

PC's are now in over 80% of the US households, consoles are in the 45% range (according to the last figures I've seen).

~80% of the world is still on Windows 95, I'm sure that is closer to ~60% in the US but still, I imagine that out of those 80% of households under 40% have recent game worthy machines if you count the majority of games made after 2001.

[Bastich]

The PC is already niche and already has been reduced to just a few genres, so the middle choice is already reality.

It will never die, but that doesn't mean it won't suck for long periods of time. Like right now, for instance.

[Fairygdmther]

AJ like you, I would like to see some real stats on that distribution. No one seems to have them though.

Bastich - please post here more often - I love seeing your posts - such a refreshing viewpoint!

FGM-Lyn

[SoccerDude28]

Fairygodmother- It's true that there are more PC's than consoles, but a PC and a "gaming" PC are different things. If you account for PC's that can play most games coming out, than the numbers will change dramatically.

Mitsie- Yes PC's are better to play FPS'es in my opinion, but judging by the numbers of people who play Halo, and the number of FPS'es on consoles, many people tend to disagree with us. 5 years ago, it was preposterous to think that a console can play an FPS. Now, FPS'es sell more on consoles. Even strategy games like Pirates are now being ported to consoles.

And something else that I have mentioned before. It all boils down to sales figures. I was shocked to see that in the US (and not accounting for steam or MMO fees, just retailers), mobile games make close to what PC games make. I believe that these numbers are going to keep decreasing because:
1- As time passes by, there is going to be more exclusive console titles than before
2- A lot of people will not be willing to upgrade PC's to play a handful of games that are already available for consoles anyway.

[Aj_]

Mitsie- Yes PC's are better to play FPS'es in my opinion, but judging by the numbers of people who play Halo, and the number of FPS'es on consoles, many people tend to disagree with us. 5 years ago, it was preposterous to think that a console can play an FPS. Now, FPS'es sell more on consoles. Even strategy games like Pirates are now being ported to consoles.

Goldeneye was the best FPS ever, and was release in '97, the N64 had a string of FPS games that were quite popular and really good.

AJ like you, I would like to see some real stats on that distribution. No one seems to have them though.

That's a good point, all these stats aren't backed up, most of the stats companies will not release how they gathered the stats, if it is anything like how they gather TV stats in America then they would be totally unreliable IMO.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Fairygodmother- It's true that there are more PC's than consoles, but a PC and a "gaming" PC are different things. If you account for PC's that can play most games coming out, than the numbers will change dramatically.

Damn, someone beat me to it.

A lot of PCs are used for work, for servers, et cetera; not for games. Consoles, however, are bought for gaming. So you've got a pure-gaming figure if you count consoles (maybe with modded exceptions here and there, who knows, but that'd be an absolute minority), but it's very hard to tell which PCs are actually used for proper gaming.

The downside of a PC is that you do need to upgrade it all the time to play the most recent games. A console might be "upgraded", too, eventually, like the X-Box to the X-Box 360, so you need to buy a new one, but as long as that console is current, you can be sure you don't need to change anything about it to play new games.

My PC, for example, runs Windows 98 SE and is roughly three years old. It could never play an X-Box game and I'd be nuts to upgrade it, I don't have the money to do that, I'd rather have a console, buy my games for that, and be done with it, rather than having to spend time and money figuring out what parts of my PC need changing, doing that myself (or letting someone else do it), and, and, and.

Now, don't get me wrong. I fully understand people that play games on a PC and keep upgrading it. But that's not my world. Fact is, my PC is my work station, not my gaming device. And in that, I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority.

To cut a long story short: What SoccerDude28 said.

[Fairygdmther]

The PC I'm on now was a work PC when I got it 6 1/2 years ago - a Win98se. I wasn't into games then, at least not purchased games, only casual ones. I got an XP which I managed to crash, and it needs fixing, so I'm back to this one. I've managed to play adv games on this up through last year's release of Syberia 2. The ones since then are beyond my win98se's capabilities.

I bring this up because I feel that if we can capture the casual gamers into adv gaming, which doesn't require a state of the art gaming PC, then we can get people to buy adv games and increase the numbers and if interested, then these people will upgrade their computers, either by replacing parts or replacing the entire PC. The people I work with, almost without exception, when they have home PC's, have XP already, so they could play most adv games without changes. They don't have much RAM or powerful processors, but they do have enough to play most of the current adv games. If they can get into gaming, IMHO, the rest will follow. But they need to know about the gaming side of things, and where to get help and how to do what they need. I wish the games came with links to sites like this to help people to see that there is a community out here that they can join and get help or info.

FGM-Lyn

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

The PC I'm on now was a work PC when I got it 6 1/2 years ago - a Win98se. I wasn't into games then, at least not purchased games, only casual ones. I got an XP which I managed to crash, and it needs fixing, so I'm back to this one. I've managed to play adv games on this up through last year's release of Syberia 2. The ones since then are beyond my win98se's capabilities.

I bring this up because I feel that if we can capture the casual gamers into adv gaming, which doesn't require a state of the art gaming PC, then we can get people to buy adv games and increase the numbers and if interested, then these people will upgrade their computers, either by replacing parts or replacing the entire PC. The people I work with, almost without exception, when they have home PC's, have XP already, so they could play most adv games without changes. They don't have much RAM or powerful processors, but they do have enough to play most of the current adv games. If they can get into gaming, IMHO, the rest will follow. But they need to know about the gaming side of things, and where to get help and how to do what they need. I wish the games came with links to sites like this to help people to see that there is a community out here that they can join and get help or info.

FGM-Lyn

No disrespect to adventure games, but they are very well behind in terms of graphical power, and judging by how niche the adventure genre is, they are not representitive of games played on the PC by most gamers. Just ask anyone here who is trying to play Psychonauts (a fairly good looking game albeit not the utmost in graphical power), and see how many people can run it smoothly on their machine. Even my monster machine, which cost me about $1600 to upgrade stutters a little in games like DOOM 3. And lets not forget how taxing Myst 5 will be. I saw it in E3 and it looks drop dead gorgeous, but I highly doubt it will run on win 98. If you have an XBOX on the other hand, you can run Myst 5 without worrying about upgrades.

If you want to play TAC adventure games solely, most probably you do not need a console . But most gamers out there (including myself), do not limit ourselves to one genre or one type of game.

[Aj_]

The downside of a PC is that you do need to upgrade it all the time to play the most recent games. A console might be "upgraded", too, eventually, like the X-Box to the X-Box 360, so you need to buy a new one, but as long as that console is current, you can be sure you don't need to change anything about it to play new games.

In the majority of cases upgrading isn't the cheapest or simplest option when you need to imrpove your performance. The gap between buying a new PC that runs the latest games has been close to buying the latest console.

Even my monster machine, which cost me about $1600 to upgrade stutters a little in games like DOOM 3.

I upgraded for less than half that and can run Doom 3, but that doesn't matter because saying it stutters doesn't prove your point one bit.

1- As time passes by, there is going to be more exclusive console titles than before

If anything the trend has gone the other way.

2- A lot of people will not be willing to upgrade PC's to play a handful of games that are already available for consoles anyway.

PC gaming isn't the same as console gaming and never will be.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

No disrespect to adventure games, but they are very well behind in terms of graphical power, and judging by how niche the adventure genre is, they are not representitive of games played on the PC by most gamers. Just ask anyone here who is trying to play Psychonauts (a fairly good looking game albeit not the utmost in graphical power), and see how many people can run it smoothly on their machine. Even my monster machine, which cost me about $1600 to upgrade stutters a little in games like DOOM 3. And lets not forget how taxing Myst 5 will be. I saw it in E3 and it looks drop dead gorgeous, but I highly doubt it will run on win 98. If you have an XBOX on the other hand, you can run Myst 5 without worrying about upgrades.

If you want to play TAC adventure games solely, most probably you do not need a console . But most gamers out there (including myself), do not limit ourselves to one genre or one type of game.

Jeez, soccer dude, you quoted me, but did you read it?

I'm trying to get people into gaming - ya gotta start somewhere! Of course they won't stay with TAC games! And many/most will go on to other types of games. Get them interested first, then the upgrades will come out of their desire to play better games.

Part of the issue with consoles is an age related thing. When you grow up with them, you are comfortable with them. When you are older than that, you may see them as something for kids, since they were for so many early years, with Atari, etc. You need to reach the older gamers too, who have the money and time to spend on games - we need to spark their interest. Since they already know how to use a PC, it is natural to have them begin there, where they are more comfortable - then come the upgrades and somewhat, a move to consoles.

For the older group, there is a technophobic issue as well - the VCR complex (my term for it) - this is when people got VCR's to play movies at home and tape shows, and got so disgusted with these impossible to program boxes, that they will refuse to hook anything but cable to their TV's now, (and often this is done by the cable company). If they are of this mentality, they know they will need help for a PC to hook it up, so they get their son, nephew, etc. to help, and they could do that with a console, too, but might be hesitant to do so.

Things you guys take for granted are difficult for many over 35-40 who have never done this kind of set up. I'm a fairly techie older woman, and believe me, quite an exception to the rule, yet I need help sometimes with this stuff. And sometimes it's just the physical stuff. My 3 yr old flat screen 27" TV weighs 100lbs (45Kg) - if I just need to plug in my PS2 or Xbox, I can shift it to turn it around, but if I really need to get back there, I need physical help to hold the weight. Even my XP tower weighs over 50lbs (24Kg) - I can slide it on the table it's on, but I can't carry it around - it's too heavy for me. So even for me, who's not a technophobe, there can be issues to upgrades that you guys might not realize. Not everyone has a son or nephew handy to help (I'm living 1500miles [2400Km] from my nearest nephews). This means getting and paying for professional help.

Still, I think it is worth going after the older group to get them interested in games - especially those who like movies and books - they would be ideal people to get interested in games with the added interactivity.

FGM-Lyn

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Aj_

If anything the trend has gone the other way.

Originally Posted by Aj_

PC gaming isn't the same as console gaming and never will be.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say games are becoming more cross platform (which I don't necessarily agree with since companies like MS and Sony to compete need to secure exclusive titles). Then you say that PC gaming and console gaming are different. Go figure...

And it is absurd to say that upgrading a PC is like buying a new console. The cost of the highest end graphics card alone is more expensive than any of the consoles available.

[SoccerDude28]

To FGM- FGM, to run a PC game is really much more complex than running a game on a console. You need to be more tech savvy especially when the game refuses to run due to direct X issues, or graphic card problems. I know 20 year olds who struggle with running games on PC's so with older folks, it is even more of a hassle. With a console, it is just like watching a movie on a VCR, you pop in the game and play.

As far as bringing older folk to play games, well although it does not relate to the future of PC gaming vs consoles directly, I believe in what Miyamoto has stated before, that it's all a matter of time. Currently the older generation thinks games are for kids, because they do not know a lot about the industry. When the nintendo and the playstation generations grow up, they would have grown up playing games, so they would have a much better understanding and awareness of them.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Bastich - please post here more often - I love seeing your posts - such a refreshing viewpoint!

You might want to go a little easier on the cocktails. I think it's affecting your judgement.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Bastich

You might want to go a little easier on the cocktails. I think it's affecting your judgement.

I wish cocktails would help! No, it's just my natural absurdity!

FGM-Lyn

[vansau]

Unless there is some bizarre craze driving people to buy the Phantom system (and thus playing PC games on their TV), I'm pretty certain that PC gaming is here to stay.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Not everyone has a son or nephew handy to help (I'm living 1500miles [2400Km] from my nearest nephews). This means getting and paying for professional help.

Don't you have any big muscular neighbours?