It's 2010, But A No-Go For GNOME's 10x10 Goal

[BlackStar]

Those arbitrary requirements are largely irrelevent, you can still play at 720p no problem, more than comparable with a console. (I used MW2 as the main example). Those requirements are never applicable to the real world. At low resolutions they are far too high at high resolutions they are far too low.

Remember we're not comparing a pc to a gaming pc. Just a console, which is easy to match.

You can turn almost any desktop into a comparable system to a console that was made in the last 6 years. Most people fit this requirement.

Sorry, but this 720p argument is completely arbitrary. You don't build a gaming PC in order to match a console. You build a PC in order to play games.

New games simply won't be enjoyable on your 2003 PC example. Many won't even run on such a system (PES2010, Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect 2 to name a few "easy" console port examples.). You *do* need a fairly recent PC and you *do* need to upgrade it fairly often in order to meet the system requirements of new games.

If you want I can provide statistics on how the majority of laptops are second or third PCs? Mostly they are only portable secondary machines. Though I admit *some* people do use desktop replacement laptops now (where almost none did a few years ago). Luckily desktop replacement laptops can also pull off gaming at 720p!

Desktop replacements were all the rage 5-6 years ago: 17'' laptops with powerful graphics cards and 45' battery life. However, this is the 2010 where smaller and lighter is better. Why do you think Apple is advertizing thinness and 6+ hours battery lives on their new systems?

Moreover, yes I'd like to see this evidence that laptops are being bought as secondary systems. Netbooks certainly but laptops?

[Hoodlum]

Sorry, but a 2003 processor (AthlonXP; Athlon64; Pentium4) is below minimum specs for many recent games, including console ports. You cannot build a gaming PC with such a configuration. You can build something, but that won't be a gaming PC.

Those arbitrary requirements are largely irrelevent, you can still play at 720p no problem, more than comparable with a console. (I used MW2 as the main example). Those requirements are never applicable to the real world. At low resolutions they are far too high at high resolutions they are far too low.

Hell if you're not happy with that example let's go with the A64 X2s? which only needs a 5 year old machine. Those easily handle 720p.

Remember we're not comparing a pc to a gaming pc. Just a console, which is easy to match.

It's true that you can generally upgrade a recent desktop to a gaming machine for less than the cost of a new console. However, this assumes that (a) you have a recent desktop and (b) you want to game on it (and pay the price in noise and power consumption).

Neither is true in the general case.

You can turn almost any desktop into a comparable system to a console that was made in the last 6 years. Most people fit this requirement.

I was simply pointing out the "cost" argument in favour of consoles is false in the case of any home with a desktop pc (pretty much every family home in the first world). This almost covers the entire console market.

Do you have evidence for this?

If you want I can provide statistics on how the majority of laptops are second or third PCs? Mostly they are only portable secondary machines. Though I admit *some* people do use desktop replacement laptops now (where almost none did a few years ago). Luckily desktop replacement laptops can also pull off gaming at 720p!

Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005 and the new netbook fad has only helped widen the gap. In fact, most of my acquaintances have don't even own a desktop any more, and the few that do prefer to use their laptops/netbooks instead. Even the company I work for has retired desktop workstations in favor of laptops and docking stations.

This is going way off topic and is just ancedotes.
The only case where updating a PC is actually more expensive is when you have a low-powered laptop (but not a desktop replacement) as your only PC, or a netbook, or a desktop so old that it can't run anything at even 720p smoothly (Likely an old low clocked P4 or P III). For a start a lot of power supplies often do not even last that long in PCs these days (and the whole pc gets replaced).

All of these are pretty special cases and I never argued that consoles weren't cost effective in some cases but, in general, no they aren't cheaper because most people have a PC that is within 5 or 6 years old *somewhere*.

Geez, You'd think you hadn't thrown a relatively decent graphics card into an old pc before!

[BlackStar]

I don't know what you're disputing. I never said a desktop replacement laptop was cheaper.

My original point was that a desktop pc (like the one I used as an example with a processor from 2003) can run games at 720p (a higher resolution than a lot of console games) at 30fps or higher with a modest 7800GS which is similar to the graphics card used in the PS3.

With that fact in mind you can easily add a graphics card to even a low end machine and have a gaming pc. This is cheaper than buying a console, I stated as such.

Sorry, but a 2003 processor (AthlonXP; Athlon64; Pentium4) is below minimum specs for many recent games, including console ports. You cannot build a gaming PC with such a configuration. You can build something, but that won't be a gaming PC.

It's true that you can generally upgrade a recent desktop to a gaming machine for less than the cost of a new console. However, this assumes that (a) you have a recent desktop and (b) you want to game on it (and pay the price in noise and power consumption).

Neither is true in the general case.

Most people in first world countries own a desktop PC.

Do you have evidence for this?

Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005 and the new netbook fad has only helped widen the gap. In fact, most of my acquaintances don't even own a desktop any more, and the few that do prefer to use their laptops/netbooks instead. Even the company I work for has retired desktop workstations in favor of laptops and docking stations.

[benmoran]

Just to throw this out there...

The "Big" PC titles from the 90s were all made by studios that we would consider small today. Even EA was tiny back in those days (80s/early 90s). Companies didn't need to sell millions of copies to be successful then.

I think a lot of indie studios are taking up the slack in the (I hate to say "low end") of the market. And IMO, they are making some of the best games.

[Hoodlum]

What?

A desktop replacement laptop is easily 4x-5x the price of a console. Buying a netbook + console is much better value than buying a desktop replacement or even a netbook + gaming desktop.

I don't know what you're disputing. I never said a desktop replacement laptop was cheaper.

My original point was that a desktop pc (like the one I used as an example with a processor from 2003) can run games at 720p (a higher resolution than a lot of console games) at 30fps or higher with a modest 7800GS which is similar to the graphics card used in the PS3.

With that fact in mind you can easily add a graphics card to even a low end machine and have a gaming pc. This is cheaper than buying a console, I stated as such.

Other people mentioned laptops being used as desktops as an exception. If you want to use a laptop as a desktop machine you buy a desktop replacement. If you buy a low end laptop and expect it to be a desktop replacement, you will be disappointed. This is a very small subset of people where the general rule does not apply. Most people in first world countries own a desktop PC.

[BlackStar]

I understand that some people get "desktop replacement" laptops but these are easily capable of most games at 720p (higher specced than normal laptops). Infact having to shift the discussion of PC vs Console gaming to the corner-case of people who buy low powered laptops as desktop replacements (instead of getting desktop replacements) on the subject just shows how weak the argument of reduced cost of consoles is compared to a desktop PC.

What?

A desktop replacement laptop is easily 4x-5x the price of a console. Buying a netbook + console is much better value than buying a desktop replacement or even a netbook + gaming desktop.

[Hoodlum]

Actually it's more like laptops are meant for light duty tasks such as doing taxes or balancing your check book, web tasks, etc. When you want to run true intensive tasks, gaming, multimedia creation, etc the desktop is a far more satisfying experience and this is the exact scenario that popular netbooks are targeting. Netbooks/notebooks are there to either supplement the more power hungry and act as a secondary device or provide a solution for less demanding users.

Indeed, few people could argue against the likes of multimedia being at least somewhat popular in the era of youtube and similar sites. I find my laptop use to either be when i'm in bed on a weekend browsing, for work related tasks or as a quick portable device for internet access.

I understand that some people get "desktop replacement" laptops but these are easily capable of most games at 720p (higher specced than normal laptops). Infact having to shift the discussion of PC vs Console gaming to the corner-case of people who buy low powered laptops as desktop replacements (instead of getting desktop replacements) on the subject just shows how weak the argument of reduced cost of consoles is compared to a desktop PC.

[L33F3R]

i agree. I wouldnt want my lappy soaking up as much juice as my Desktop .

[deanjo]

Laptops kick ass in a huge way. Desks are for being stuck at work. Who wants to do facebook and go youtube-ing at a desk if your at home? Desks at home are for doing taxes or balancing your check book.

Actually it's more like laptops are meant for light duty tasks such as doing taxes or balancing your check book, web tasks, etc. When you want to run true intensive tasks, gaming, multimedia creation, etc the desktop is a far more satisfying experience and this is the exact scenario that popular netbooks are targeting. Netbooks/notebooks are there to either supplement the more power hungry and act as a secondary device or provide a solution for less demanding users.

[Hoodlum]

I registered just so i could comment on this huge piece of misinformation.
First, as of December 19, acording to vgchartz, wich is a widely recognized source of information in this industry, the sales of ps3+xbox360 combined is 66 million worldwide.

If you check my later updated source I stated 61 million, as of late 2009. Please link a source if you have one that shows otherwise.

Considering the 360 has been around for 4 years, and the ps3 for 3, we can settle on a 3.5 years period. The lifetime psone sales is 100 million, in 6 or so years.

102 million actually, check my link. Plus 32 Million (N64). Sega Saturn too, 17 million

What about the PS2 as well? the previous generation?
138 million PS2 + 24 million Xbox, + 21 million gamecube if you like dreamcast is another 10 million. (these were actually comparable systems in many ways).

Your 4x-5x argument is bullshit. The psone in its first 3.5 years was way under 50 M worldwide, so not only psone didnt sell 4x the sales of ps3 and 360 combined, but it sold less.

Source? It's also one console that had far more competitors, still sold more.

And lets not forget ps3+360 combined is just 50% of the market.

The wii created its own market that had never really been tapped before. It doesn't directly compete with either the PC or the other consoles. I can definitely agree that the Wii market is growing. You can't be seriously trying to add things like wii fit into the comparison of "gaming" on the pc or 360/PS3 :/ They are not at all comparable.

So much for a declining market, even funnier considering the economic recession. The 360+ps3 combined could end well north of the 130 M mark worldwide, considering the later years of sucesful systems are always faster than the early years.

We'll see. I can't really argue this either way, it's total speculation.

Lets now check some of the most critically acclaimed and comercially succesfull hits of the pc this year:

Left4Dead2: Surprise surprise, a 360 game.

PC game ported the the console actually, but nice try. Valve is a PC developer that ports to consoles.

Dirt2: yes, it comes from the consoles.
Resident Evil 5: no need to say
Batman Arkham Asylum: yep, a console game
Modern warfare 2: A cheap port of the console game.
Dragon Age: Finally a real pc game. it had to be good old bioware.

Dirt 2 - Yep comes from consoles, but upgraded for DX11 on the PC, can't really see that as a negative.
MW2 - The port is actually pretty decent.

We can easily make arbitrary "these sold well" lists.
Dawn of war II - PC, no port
Torchlight
Sims 3 - I hate it but it's pretty important nonetheless
Demigod
Battleforge
Command & Conquer 3
Anno 1404
Empire Total War

Why do you think they still release for the PC with such high piracy? Well, the market is still far larger than the console markets, the potential for success is still there. This is what i've been saying all along.

Now take for example MW2. The pc version is obviously an afterthought, just released cause it was relatively simple to release it. Acording to data from amazon and other retailers, sales of PC MW2 account for less of 10% of the sales. So much for a giant market huh.

The market is bigger than it has ever been - more people have PCs. More people play games on the PC, they just don't buy them. I've been saying this all along.

Piracy on CoD4 was claimed to be over 90% by the developer on the PC. This dwarfs all sales of CoD4 on both consoles massively. I never claimed sales on the PC were higher, only that the market for games is bigger and it is. Infact I mentioned piracy right at the start, read it again

Also keep in mind digital distribution numbers are announced with consoles. The sales numbers often mentioned for PC are only retail sales. This skews it further.

the Pc is seeing less and less releases each year, and what is release, are usually ports/adaptations of the console games, and not the other way around like it used to be back in the golden days of pc games. At the beginning of the decade/end of the 90's, tens of good games would be released every month.

Considering the global pc market is several times now the size of what it was 10 years ago, id say games aren't doing that well.

Ah so you actually agree with me the PC market is bigger? finally!

It's a Temporary problem as I previously stated. When a universal distribution platform emerges(and this ridiculous situation with having 20 distribution platforms solves itself) piracy will be tackled in a meaningful way (pirating steam games being on the whole a pain compared to other types for example) The problem will be greatly lessened.

Of course the best solution would be to lock down multiplayer and focus only on the multiplayer aspect to make it extremely difficult to pirate but this requires development studios to react to the industry.

Oh and one of the reasons I even brought this up was my concern that microsoft pushing Games for Windows (which, yes, currently sucks but that can change) could become the standard. There would be little chance for us as Linux users to deal with such a situation.