The Pee-Ess Four: It's a PC FFS.

[Ironwood]

I seem to remember making various comments about today's gamers being focused on the "all-important graphical glitz" at the expense of gameplay, and getting shot down with "your gaming tastes have just changed".

By me ?

[tgr]

I seem to remember making various comments about today's gamers being focused on the "all-important graphical glitz" at the expense of gameplay, and getting shot down with "your gaming tastes have just changed".

By me ?

Unless you've changed your opinion recently, no. I think they were made a year or two ago, my comment now was more leapfrogging off of both you and merusk's comment about graphics not being everything, it wasn't actually focused on any particular person (if that's why you asked).

[calapine]

Seems I have to ask the dense questions again, if no one else steps up:

Whats the point of a console again if it's just a PC anyway?

Couldn't one just somehow slap Windows on it and run it, like, um a PC?

Or go the other way round, bring out a small PC in some micro case that people can plug their TV in? That's probably cheaper and let the gamer buy a game once on steam, than play it on their couch, at the desktop PC or at the notebook in a train...

[Ironwood]

I think what's more interesting to me is that my gaming tastes haven't changed ever.  The games I liked when I was young (which was a long time ago) I still like (see the recent release of Grimrock as a damn good example) and it doesn't matter terribly much to me how much graphical glitz you layer on top of it.

It's almost like there's a core of me that likes certain gaming 'types' and is perfectly happy to play those to death irrespective of how they look (though obviously I'm not saying look isn't important.)  Give me a Captive, Dungeon Master, Lands of Lore, System Shock type and I'll gladly play it happily.  Give me the same type and give it an awesome graphical engine and some really sophisticated access control system and I'll play it and love it just as much.  I differentiate very little between Adom and Crysis - The Graphics are different, but my pleasure centers being poked is what really matters.  (Hell, I know there's every chance I'd love Dark Souls, but I've just never got round to it.)

If you take my most extreme example of late, Diablo III, they gave us what looked on the face of it to be the same game with a much more advanced graphical state, but because that was just a lie once you got in front of it (the gameplay had changed massively due to underlying changes) it didn't tickle the spot that had previously gone without food and water for days due to Diablo and Diablo II.  Similarly, Bioshock, while looking on the face of it to be System Shock 3, turned out very, very much NOT to be and was a massive dissapointment on pretty much every level.  Similarly, something that I genuinely didn't thiink I'd like (Mass Effect Series) turned out NOT to be what I thought and tickled that spot very, very much.

Random thoughts.  Sorry.  Being off these pills is killing me.

[Merusk]

Seems I have to ask the dense questions again, if no one else steps up:

Whats the point of a console again if it's just a PC anyway?

Couldn't one just somehow slap Windows on it and run it, like, um a PC?

Or go the other way round, bring out a small PC in some micro case that people can plug their TV in? That's probably cheaper and let the gamer buy a game once on steam, than play it on their couch, at the desktop PC or at the notebook in a train...

PCs get viruses and need maintenance.  The draw of consoles (these days) is you have a one time purchase that works like an appliance.  If theres a problem you don't have to fix or troubleshoot it yourself.  Tech for the less savvy.

[tgr]

There's literally just one single reason why I'm not (and won't be) spending much time gaming on consoles: the insistence that mouse/keyboard (or a specialist controller which serves the exact same purpose/delivers the same control mechanism) is verboten.

Remove that ban, and punch anyone who thinks the pad is the "best controller ever devised for any game (especially FPS games)" in the dick, and I'd happily be a console gamer. vOv

[Maledict]

Concours are significantly more powerful with their tech than a PC as, they don't have to run overheads such as Windows etc. look at the memory inside a 360 or PS3 and see how far they managed to push that.

Consoles are also good because you cause them in your front room. I know that for tech savvy people having a PC hooked up to your main television is fine but for the vast majority of people that's a no go. It is genuinely more fun playing a game like Mass Effect on your living rooms big screen television rather than a monitor in the study.

It's also better for local multiplayer - playing a game between friends on one PC is a mess, on a console its a lot easier and natural.

[K9]

I thought shovelware like Guitar Hero 9 and those Kinect dancing and wii-sports-alike games were hugely profitable, despite holding zero interest for the wider gaming press?

[KallDrexx]

Seems I have to ask the dense questions again, if no one else steps up:

Whats the point of a console again if it's just a PC anyway?

Couldn't one just somehow slap Windows on it and run it, like, um a PC?

Or go the other way round, bring out a small PC in some micro case that people can plug their TV in? That's probably cheaper and let the gamer buy a game once on steam, than play it on their couch, at the desktop PC or at the notebook in a train...

For me it's because I can buy a game and 100% know it's going to work and be playable on that system, instead of trying to navigate and decypher the hell that are minimum/recommended specs.  I can just pop the game in, sit down, and start playing (after a retardedly long install of course).

[Cyrrex]

I thought shovelware like Guitar Hero 9 and those Kinect dancing and wii-sports-alike games were hugely profitable, despite holding zero interest for the wider gaming press?

Wouldn't surprise me.  For example, some of our friends have pre-teen girls (ranging from 3 to 10 in age), and they have a library of games that I barely even knew existed.  Big on Kinect games and dancing games in particular.  I think F13 is underrepresented in certain genres.

But this is an interesting segway.  There are just certain things that consoles are better at than PCs and always will be.  Even people like us (the savvy sort) probably don't think of all the ways in which a console is easier than a PC.  Connecting a camera and dancing.  Connecting a microphone and singing.  Extremely simple to find and use DLC for that content.  Put disc in slot, game plays.  As long as you got the right disc for the right system, it is going to work.  You are always running at max settings.  Need an update?  Push the green button.  The sound always works, and it's always coming out in 5.1.  Video always works, and always looks like it is supposed to look.  Controller always works.  They rarely crash, and when they do, even a five year-old knows what to do about it.  Etc.

[satael]

Those specs looked like something for Valve Steambox (though maybe slightly over the top) rather than something innovative on the console side. 

[Tebonas]

For me it's because I can buy a game and 100% know it's going to work and be playable on that system, instead of trying to navigate and decypher the hell that are minimum/recommended specs.  I can just pop the game in, sit down, and start playing (after a retardedly long install of course).

I too know that fear from the olden days, but the last few years, Steam served exactly that purpose for me. There was not one Steam game I bought I had to do anything but install it to make it run. GoG as well.

[Merusk]

I think F13 is underrepresented in certain genres.

We've never been representative of anything but a very, very narrow demographic.  I thought this was common knowledge.

I thought shovelware like Guitar Hero 9 and those Kinect dancing and wii-sports-alike games were hugely profitable, despite holding zero interest for the wider gaming press?

Certainly how I understand it, much like the EA Sports shovelware.   Gaming press cares about the 18-25 male demographic with an occasional bone tossed to females. None of those games were aimed at that audience.

For me it's because I can buy a game and 100% know it's going to work and be playable on that system, instead of trying to navigate and decypher the hell that are minimum/recommended specs.  I can just pop the game in, sit down, and start playing (after a retardedly long install of course).

I too know that fear from the olden days, but the last few years, Steam served exactly that purpose for me. There was not one Steam game I bought I had to anything but install tit o make it run. GoG as well.

Yes, but what about upgrades to your PC.  How old is the newest component in that machine?  My PS3 is older than my machine and able to run new games. My old PC can't touch Skyrim or Mechwarrior and was terrible for WoT.

[Fabricated]

My first reaction was 'So, it's another locked down PC "console".' My second was 'All those poor bastards that spent the last 8 years learning Cell programming are stuck with an orphan skillset.'  Then my nephew got bored and wanted to play Black Ops 2.

--Dave

You know I just remembered how Sony was like, "Oh yeah the cell processor is gonna be in everything just you wait" then everyone realized while it was a kinda interesting architecture it was a pain in the ass to program for and expensive to fabricate for the majority of its life and it went into precisely nothing but the PS3.

Seems I have to ask the dense questions again, if no one else steps up:

Whats the point of a console again if it's just a PC anyway?

Couldn't one just somehow slap Windows on it and run it, like, um a PC?

Or go the other way round, bring out a small PC in some micro case that people can plug their TV in? That's probably cheaper and let the gamer buy a game once on steam, than play it on their couch, at the desktop PC or at the notebook in a train...

Ideally a console, even if it is based on x86 and using commodity hardware will have custom-made pcbs/HSF/etc and cost less since there is no variation outside of very easily removable (and also commodity) storage. PCs have to abide by form factors and standards generally for user interchangable parts, whereas a console is purpose built for one thing and uses the exact same hardware no matter what. Massive bulk chip/hardware discounts and one manufacturing process should again, ideally let you crank out a piece of hardware for a lot less than an equivalent PC.

And even if it's still basically a standardized PC in a tiny box, it'll run its own OS and people writing games for it can write to bare metal with 100% knowledge of what overhead there is and what there is to work with so you can push that same hardware a lot harder than you could in an equivalent gaming PC running Windows/Linux/etc. If you write a PC game today that flat out requires a DX11 capable graphics card and 2+ gigs of ram you've drastically reduced your possible customer base; you can write a console game that practically taxes it to the point it catches on fire and 100% of people with a proper functioning console can still run it.

[Maledict]

Those specs looked like something for Valve Steambox (though maybe slightly over the top) rather than something innovative on the console side. 

You can't compare like for like between PCs and consoles. Look at the PCs available when the 360 and Ps3 launched - they would keel over at the thought of running some of the software those machines now run. Consoles are always more powerful, like for like, due to the completely closed nature of the rig. Tiny system overhead, much greater access to the actual bits of the machine, and a guaranteed spec that means you can rely on the exact spec every time.

So far everything I've seen of the steam box indicates its just a PC in a nice shiny new format. Unless Valve are going to be as fixed and specific as the console makers a, the steam box won't have those innate advantages that a console has and so it won't be comparable directly across.

[MrHat]

Those specs looked like something for Valve Steambox (though maybe slightly over the top) rather than something innovative on the console side. 

You can't compare like for like between PCs and consoles. Look at the PCs available when the 360 and Ps3 launched - they would keel over at the thought of running some of the software those machines now run. Consoles are always more powerful, like for like, due to the completely closed nature of the rig. Tiny system overhead, much greater access to the actual bits of the machine, and a guaranteed spec that means you can rely on the exact spec every time.

So far everything I've seen of the steam box indicates its just a PC in a nice shiny new format. Unless Valve are going to be as fixed and specific as the console makers a, the steam box won't have those innate advantages that a console has and so it won't be comparable directly across.

I'm surprised they haven't straight up announced a Steam Big Picture App for the PS4.

I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

[Tebonas]

Yes, but what about upgrades to your PC.  How old is the newest component in that machine?  My PS3 is older than my machine and able to run new games. My old PC can't touch Skyrim or Mechwarrior and was terrible for WoT.

The wonderful thing about the console stagnation of recent years is that there wasn't an arms race on gamer PC hardware as well.

My current computer is 4 years old and still runs all games including Skyrim and Farcry 3 in 1920x1080.

[rk47]

There's literally just one single reason why I'm not (and won't be) spending much time gaming on consoles: the insistence that mouse/keyboard (or a specialist controller which serves the exact same purpose/delivers the same control mechanism) is verboten.

Remove that ban, and punch anyone who thinks the pad is the "best controller ever devised for any game (especially FPS games)" in the dick, and I'd happily be a console gamer. vOv

Sorry, tgr but an article disagrees with you, and I think he is making a good point.

Looking at the popularity of platform-exclusive titles doesn't really help make the keyboard-and-mouse popularity case either, I'm afraid. Steam data shows a peak of about 70,000 people playing Team Fortress 2 concurrently on Steam yesterday, but Halo 4 peaked at about 75,000 players (down from an astounding 400,000+ concurrent players at launch), according to HaloCharts.com. Counter-Strike and CS: Source may combine for about 100,000 peak concurrent players on Steam in an average day, but Gears of War 3 managed 300,000 simultaneous players on launch day, and Gears of War 2 had a million people playing simultaneously at launch [PDF, page 5] (yes, these games are "third-person" shooters and may have dropped off significantly post launch, but the data argues a similar point).

 

[Sky]

Re: pc upgrading, if it were just for games it would be apples:apples. But console gamers also need a pc for everything else pcs do. The 'tech savvy' bit about hooking a tv to the pc is nonsense, it's a plug and play monitor at this point. It's not 2003 where you have to create a custom INF file for the tv. And my gpu setup is 460SLI, hardly cutting edge, perfect for 1080p.

THAT SAID.

I've been wanting a console the last couple years but hate buying what amounts to obsolete hardware. I call it the Madden effect. Just want shit like Madden during football season, exclusives like Red Dead Revolver. Tough call to make, because otherwise I'd rather just use my pc. My bet is they price me out of it for at least a couple more years.

Re: zomg it's a pc. Good. Development for the same hardware platform for pretty much everything but mobile devices is a good thing.

[Yegolev]

When I was a kid and the Genesis had just come out I told my parents I still wanted an NES because while the Genesis had better graphics the games didn't have the depth of NES games.

So, you've always been an old man.  Time to get a wood stove and an apple tree. 

About PC upgrades, I only moved up from the Radeon 4870 in January because I had some bonus money and I thought 1) DX11 might be neat 2) Maybe I can get SS1-CDROM to run.

[Kageru]

Seems I have to ask the dense questions again, if no one else steps up:

Whats the point of a console again if it's just a PC anyway?

A console is a securely locked down PC so that it can become vendor exclusive and get exclusive titles to justify it. Most of the other aspects are just incidental such as a single vendor, single model, machine being easier to support and getting good economies of scale.

I guess you could argue they inherit the "lounge-room" focus from when dedicated hardware gaming machines made sense.

Concours are significantly more powerful with their tech than a PC as, they don't have to run overheads such as Windows etc. look at the memory inside a 360 or PS3 and see how far they managed to push that.

... the PS3 is running desktop linux. The fact that windows is so fat microsoft needed to build another OS to run the Xbox is not a property of consoles.
 

[Quinton]

The PS4 really does look pretty close to what I'd expect to be standard for mid-highend PCs by the end of 2013.  Technology-wise it's not much of a leap from where we are today.

The main advantage of console platforms, as Fabricated points out, tends to be economy of scale (thus more affordable to end-users, sometimes in recent years even subsidized), and consistency of architecture (it's going to run pretty much the same exact "OS", have the same exact base hardware, etc) making it easier for developers to get more deterministic performance and user experience (leading to the "it just works" experience that many enjoy about consoles).  It's tricky because it's a chicken and egg problem -- if you don't have tens of millions of them in the field they aren't as appealing as targets for your big name titles that can drive sales, and without a compelling set of titles/features, people have less interest in buying this dedicated box.

Of course as the console platforms start looking more like PCs (OS updates, downloadable patches, need network for features to work, etc), they seem to be bringing some of the pain of the PC experience ("why do I have to upgrade the OS twice and accept these patches before I can just play my game?!").

I think there still can be value to people in being able to buy a box that they just plug in and can play games, watch movies, without worrying about "do I have a good enough video card?" "do I have enough RAM?" "will upgrading to the new video driver fix the new game but break something else?" etc.  But the line is definitely blurring, with more and more parties looking to get into this space, and less obvious differences between the underlying hardware.

[Paelos]

If the console costs me $500 to get, is it really economically feasible? As they move closer to PCs in terms of functionality, what's the point in not just getting a PC and shunning the console, other than the forced "exclusive" titles? The backlash to that would be developers not going exclusive when they are handing over money to the console guys.

[tgr]

Yes, but what about upgrades to your PC.  How old is the newest component in that machine?  My PS3 is older than my machine and able to run new games. My old PC can't touch Skyrim or Mechwarrior and was terrible for WoT.

I've actually struggled to be able to justify upgrading my PC the past 3 or so times I've done it the last 4 or 5 years (the last time was actually due to hardware failure), and that's been while running most games at 2560x1600. Most of the time the only thing I've really had to turn off to get an acceptable framerate has been AA, and last I checked most console games ran at 720p or less. The only thing I've really felt I've had to upgrade the last few years has been memory and disk.

Actually, the main performance upgrade I did the past few years was actually moving over to Windows 7, that made it possible to f.ex run 2 eve clients on the same screen without performance suffering (I had to set each client up to run on one specific monitor, and even just having a tiny bit of the window overlapping onto the other screen made performance taking a nosedive).

Sorry, tgr but an article disagrees with you, and I think he is making a good point.

"It's popular, that automatically means it's better!"

[Kageru]

For me it's because I can buy a game and 100% know it's going to work and be playable on that system, instead of trying to navigate and decypher the hell that are minimum/recommended specs.  I can just pop the game in, sit down, and start playing (after a retardedly long install of course).

Like Skyrim on the PS3?

Part of it used to be that the game would be written only for the target console and tested in depth. With larger games and the more expensive titles pretty much having to go multi-platform that's not as true as it used to be.

Mind you, there's no reason the PC space couldn't gain from some standardisation. Set a sensible spec (or various levels) and badge PC hardware that meets those requirements. So you can look at a game and do a single comparison to see if your system should run it with no problems. But the dominant force in the PC market is not interested as they have a competing product they get a bigger cut on. If the steambox works that might well solve the problem.

[K9]

I thought shovelware like Guitar Hero 9 and those Kinect dancing and wii-sports-alike games were hugely profitable, despite holding zero interest for the wider gaming press?

Wouldn't surprise me.  For example, some of our friends have pre-teen girls (ranging from 3 to 10 in age), and they have a library of games that I barely even knew existed.  Big on Kinect games and dancing games in particular.  I think F13 is underrepresented in certain genres.

But this is an interesting segway.  There are just certain things that consoles are better at than PCs and always will be.  Even people like us (the savvy sort) probably don't think of all the ways in which a console is easier than a PC.  Connecting a camera and dancing.  Connecting a microphone and singing.  Extremely simple to find and use DLC for that content.  Put disc in slot, game plays.  As long as you got the right disc for the right system, it is going to work.  You are always running at max settings.  Need an update?  Push the green button.  The sound always works, and it's always coming out in 5.1.  Video always works, and always looks like it is supposed to look.  Controller always works.  They rarely crash, and when they do, even a five year-old knows what to do about it.  Etc.

These were pretty much my thoughts on consoles. Ease of use is a huge plus for them.

[HaemishM]

So basically the PS4 is the Steambox with a dedicated controller that has OOOOTOUCH, more limited developer base, one specific set of hardware and a walled garden of software both disc and streamed?

Color me unimpressed. I'll have to see the price first.

[Numtini]

If the console costs me $500 to get, is it really economically feasible? As they move closer to PCs in terms of functionality, what's the point in not just getting a PC and shunning the console

For teens, I advise a lot of parents on PCs and getting them to go for a gaming PC rather than a cheap laptop and a console is infinitely harder even if the gaming PC is cheaper than the combination of devices.

[sickrubik]

So basically the PS4 is the Steambox with a dedicated controller that has OOOOTOUCH, more limited developer base, one specific set of hardware and a walled garden of software both disc and streamed?

Color me unimpressed. I'll have to see the price first.

Would Steam(box) not qualify as a walled garden as well in this context?

[Hawkbit]

That Wiibar PSbar had better not be battery powered.  If they're trying to ram peripherals down our throats, that's a guaranteed no-purchase from me.  Concentrate on making good games that use the controller and you have the best chance to succeed.

[jakonovski]

So what do you guys think of the 8 gigs of DDR5 that serves both the cpu and gpu? My pants tell me that should be a whole lot faster than your average gaming pc configuration.

[HaemishM]

So basically the PS4 is the Steambox with a dedicated controller that has OOOOTOUCH, more limited developer base, one specific set of hardware and a walled garden of software both disc and streamed?

Color me unimpressed. I'll have to see the price first.

Would Steam(box) not qualify as a walled garden as well in this context?

Not if the Steambox is running Windows OS.

[tgr]

Given Gabe's enthusiasm for Win8, I'd be inclined to put money on steambox not running any version of Windows.

[sickrubik]

So basically the PS4 is the Steambox with a dedicated controller that has OOOOTOUCH, more limited developer base, one specific set of hardware and a walled garden of software both disc and streamed?

Color me unimpressed. I'll have to see the price first.

Would Steam(box) not qualify as a walled garden as well in this context?

Not if the Steambox is running Windows OS.

I wouldn't be surprised if it runs some flavor of Linux, but that would only make it slightly more open, but I'm still not sure what the OS would change about it being a walled garden or not. I'm not trying to be a dick, I genuinely asking. If we're talking about the games disc/streamed wise, it's not like you can remove your games from the Steambox, nor install non-steam games to it.

[Rendakor]

If it's running Windows, what would stop you from installing non Steam games?