Originally posted by espeed
ok, but if i could say one final thing, im pretty sure people were sayign this about the new ps2 and xbox that came out, but look how the PC came though it, it just keeps hammering away.
I think the most prominent reason for this was the fact that consoles and PCs didn't "overlap" too much in that generation in their capabilities.
In the older generations (Playstation), as far as I know, the "controls" you could have were pretty limited. I don't believe you could even have like a mouse or a keyboard. And no internet access!
Then you have the PS2 generation. The XBox still couldn't accomodate a standard mouse I believe. Where as, the PS2 perhaps could. Not sure about this. And the xbox for example, "didn't" have internet access (XBox Live) from the beginning.
There was obviously a "lack of features" compared to PCs back in the day. But, clearly starting with the PS2 generation, the "gaming similarities" were starting to merge together with the PCs.
The Console domination has been coming for a while now. From the days of the PS2. And I think the XBox 360 and PS3 will bring the coffin out and open it and put the PC inside it. The nail on the coffin "might not" come in this generation, but will certainly in the next.
Originally posted by CrimsonGX
Except - the pattern has been every five years, not three, pal. You also can't say 'it will cost me $400 as well' (has Sony even confirmed a price? ) - I'm sure alot of people were expecting consoles to be $300 this year, too. So you might be paying $500, never know.
I said PS4 for dramatic effect - since I was talking about the PS3 just before. If you didn't get the gist of what I meant, "I meant" the "next generation of gaming systems". Companies don't have to release them at the same "time" you know. Even with this generation, the XBox released their system a full year before the PS3. If they release XBox 720 (or whatever) in 4 years it will be "PS3 + 3 years".
We are seeing a downward trend in PC gaming. As beedubaya said, the PC games are not too prominent in some stores.
It'll be interesting to see how the economics of this plays out. Companies like Microsoft and Sony wouldn't want to put gaming systems out too often - b/c they lose money b/c of the h/w. Where as, companies like NVidia and ATI do want more console changes, b/c that's how THEY make money. And these companies are "partners". Interesting isn't it?
As for the Sony NOT costing $400, that's not a bet you want to take up. The Sony system will cost MORE than $400 to make. BUT, they wouldn't have much of a choice. Rumours has it that Microsoft is planning on cutting their prices leading up to the release date of the PS3. Simple economics - you don't even need rumours to know that they'd do it. What will SOny do?.. If they keep the prices up, no one will buy them. Their market base will be tiny, and they won't make money off games (s/w).
They don't have a choice but to cut prices. This is why monopolies are bad for consumers. Scenarios like this don't happen.
Originally posted by apokalipse
see, what a console is really made for is money. they are designed to last for a period of time and become obsolete, so you will buy the next model up the company makes. they are a system designed to entertain people.
they're one of those things that people buy "because it's so cool"
they essentially are PC's that have only one purpose.
Yup exactly. That's why they are cheap.
Originally posted by apokalipse
they are designed to be able to do anything you want them to. not just game. although they can also do that very well. PC's can do things like control a factory, calculate large numbers, host an internet site, browse the internet, mix music, render movie scenes, simulate protein folding (folding@home), search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (seti@home), etc etc.....
it is because PC's can do so much more than consoles that consoles will never replace PC's.
Only thing is, you don't need an expensive video card (except for rendering) and the "ability to be upgradeable" to do any of these things. I can put together a "really" cheap computer to do all that stuff. All of us can. Instead of a $2000 gaming system, we can have a $400 console (isn't the XBox 360 core only $300 US?) and a very cheap PC system for our other tasks.
For the longest time, I used my PIII system as one of my work machines. Until like 2004. And everything I wanted to do, I could do on that system as well. Obviously, I am a very heavy computer user - except I didn't game that much during that period.
Also, what the XBox 360 and PS3 does is give you a system that is "top of the line" compared to what's out there already. So they won't need "upgrading" to begin with. The coders of the games know their system EXACTLY. They will try to get the best out of the h/w instead of depending on h/w that only a handful of people will have.
Any programmer knows that it is much easier to program for a uniform platform. And you can make things be more efficient.
Originally posted by Flanker
I only made about 200 posts in the 3 major PC vs. Console threads about that, and basically, this forum is MADE UP of PC fanboys who will refuse to accept the truth. The above comments are your proof.
You remember that poll I made in the Off Topic forum? Think "PCs" won out. haha
.. TF is not too representative of the real market.. All of us (especially me) love computers. Heck, that's why I am a computer engineer
.. I just don't think a traditional PC systems is where the future of "gaming" is at.