End of the golden era of gaming? [Archive]

swift killer

18th August 2009, 11:02 AM

Reports say sales are falling, consoles are overpriced (*ahem* Sony) and more developers are making a loss... is this the end of the golden age? I personally blame shoddy licensed games which people blindly buy for the sake of the name (thanks hollywood) as the result of this is that the REAL developers out there making the best games lose out as they get ignored by the general (idiotic) public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8201332.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8200973.stm

Temet

18th August 2009, 11:15 AM

Some years ago, you could make a hit in your garage (Prince of Persia) ... nowadays, it takes millions of $ and tenths/hundreds of people... this costs too much!

An yeah, I bought my Super Nes (maybe "Super Nintendo" or "Super Famicom" for you) and PS1 1490 Francs (about 227 euros) ... PS3 is still more than 400 euros here in France (> 560 $) ... so yeah, it's expensive.
Take into accound that in France we're veeeerrryyyy late for HD, so 2 years ago a really small part of the population had a HDTV. I still have my 36 cm TV... 'cause TV programs really suck.

So, getting a PS3 for me is about 1000 euros (1400 $) and that's f*cking expensive !

GreenPhazon

18th August 2009, 11:24 AM

There are a lot of big name games coming out over the next 12 months. If they don't spur on people's love for games, we know all is lost.

rdmx

18th August 2009, 12:01 PM

Arguably, all these 'big games' are part of the problem - you get publishers unafraid to constantly shovel and exploit franchises, and while they sell well, they do nothing for innovation. These big-budget games overshadow all the little talent that pops up. Without the financial backing and massive budgets of some publishers, these people have no place to shine. No one buys their game because no one knows about it or is willing to release it. Let's face it, publishers exist to make money - from a financial standpoint, why invest in something which is risky, as opposed to something that will certainly sell well? Case in point - Activision and Call of Duty/Guitar Hero/Tony Hawk. They basically kill off their franchises by exploting it to the max - heck I think it's Guitar Hero 5 now? If all publishers eventually take this route, we will be left with the same **** being shovelled at us every year. I think EA recognised the error of their ways last year, taking risks on both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, and good on them for it.

I think as far as independent game distribution is concerned though, digital distribution such as Steam, PSN or XBLA is the way forward where publishing costs aren't as immense. For example, a game such as Audiosurf would never have sold well in the shops.

mdhay

18th August 2009, 12:06 PM

Before that GreenPhazon, EA will infect the world with the same game over and over and over again, complete with invisible walls, the EA logo plastered all over the place and their armies will port and wreck every unique game in existence with all of the above, just like Call of Duty, GH and Fifa.:rolleyes:

Z_Zoquis

18th August 2009, 01:05 PM

Lance

18th August 2009, 01:10 PM

The death of one golden era is usually the seed of the next; I wouldn't worry too much about anything other than how to get the most enjoyment of what's happening right now.

IH8YOU

18th August 2009, 02:00 PM

This has happened already - look at what happened over 20 years ago, prior to the launch of the NES.

Titles were becoming diluted, cloned and copied - overall quality of games went downhill, the market saturated - and consumers became numb.

It wasn't until the NES that the phoenix was reborn.

The big thing this round, is the state of the global economy - this is having a large effect on innovation, games and consumers alike.

I just hope the Wipeout franchise itself, survives until the next boom. :|

okam

18th August 2009, 04:54 PM

Last I heard, the gaming industry raked in more money than the movie industry. A *lot* more money. And the movie industry isn't excactly struggling ("movie industry" != Hollywood). What's to worry about?

Darkdrium777

18th August 2009, 05:09 PM

consoles are overpriced (*ahem* Sony)The PS3 isn't overpriced. It's expensive. There's a difference.
Overpriced means that for the features of the product you are getting, you are paying too much. That isn't the case with the PS3 (blu-Ray, game console, media center, it goes on.)
Expensive means that the price you need to pay is higher than the norm. That is the case with the PS3.
Then there's the fact that people are willing, or not, to pay this certain price. Some are, some aren't.

As far as gaming goes, there are still new IPs coming out today, 2009-2010 promises to be a big "season" for gaming. Not necessarily for Call of Duty and Guitar Hero/Rock Band (I've never played these and never will), but because of fresh new/different things like Borderlands, Uncharted 2, God of War 3, StarCraft, Assassin's Creed 2, etc.
Sure most of these games are sequels, but we haven't seen them for some time, and they are all quality titles no doubt, with new features and new things to try out and explore; they are not rehashes like the Activision cash mine(s). That's why I'm looking forward to these games more than anything else.

PoliPino

18th August 2009, 05:42 PM

I think a new golden age is just around the corner in the form of downloadable games. Frankly, all of my favorite games from this generation have been downloadables. Wipeout HD, Pixeljunk Monsters and Eden, even Burnout Paradise is downloadable though I bought the disc. Downloadable games are much less costly to produce and distribute and there seems to be more of a trend towards creating unique and original games like the Pixeljunks and Everyday Shooter, Flower - games that sort of combine new and old/classic game qualities.

My thoughts exactly. The downloadable content has brought back some of the freedom for small developers to compete. There's no way PixelJunk could distribute their titles in the 'normal' manner and compete or be profitable. But with the minimal overhead and PSN as the distribution network, they have a chance to create niche games and still make a profit. I don't think games like Trash Panic or The Last Guy would ever have seen the light of day without the PSN.

With the risk of failure mitigated by having the titles distributed by the PSN, I think it will free up even the larger publishers to take more risks on better gameplay. Why do we see so many Burnout, Madden, and Guitar Hero games year after year? Because they're a safe bet for the publisher. People already know the name, and will buy it. But the publisher can lose a LOT of money if they try something new and it flops.

Personally, I'm still optimistic about the future of games. After all, the game industry did weather the economic turmoil a lot better than most industries did.

RedScar

18th August 2009, 07:45 PM

Current gaming is hurt by two large factors, money and the gamers. Money for the obvious reasons of development cost, risk to try new things, cost of gaming (see cost of gaming per hour thread), etc. The biggest failure to the gaming industry in my eyes though are the people who play games (funny eh?). Gamers now are split between consoles, becoming "fanboys", avoiding good games which push the boundary for the sake of waiting for another rehash of an existing game. This doesn't come through much on the older generation gamers (20+) but the younger ones. I go to IGN, gamespot, or gametrailers and look at forum posts or video comments and a large portion are either flaming the game calling it crap, or the console it is being released on. Something wrong with people when this sorta stuff goes on.

Moral of the story for me, buy a gaming PC, the console that can never die. PC gaming is at what I would consider an all time low, with very few big name titles being produced for it and the rest being ports from console games. However, since it is a PC it will always have the next step in gaming before the consoles, as the changing technology opens up new possibilities. I enjoy my PS3 but I have 6 games of which I only play 1-2 frequently, with neither the money ($70 for a new AAA title is just stupid) nor interest to buy other console games. My PC on the other hand I have well over 10 games and still play a good portion of them.

Frances_Penfold

18th August 2009, 11:33 PM

As much as I love WOHD, it's pretty clear that support of HD systems is economically killing the games industry-- it costs more and more money to make AAA games and sales are not keeping pace. A world-wide recession isn't helping the situation either.

This is readily apparent by the fact that niche-types games-- RPGs, strategy games, platformers-- have largely migrated from home consoles to handhelds this generation. It is not economically viable to produce HD games unless there is a really large target audience.

On the positive side, the current generation of consoles are likely to stick around for longer than they have in the past.

Last I heard, the gaming industry raked in more money than the movie industry. A *lot* more money. And the movie industry isn't excactly struggling ("movie industry" != Hollywood). What's to worry about?

The problem isn't the amount of money that is being made, it's that more is spent to develop and market software/hardware than is made back.

In the ten or so years that Microsoft has been involved with the Xbox platform, it lost almost SEVEN BILLION U.S. DOLLARS, and only very recently started making money. That means that whatever Xbox gaming experiences we have enjoyed over the years has been heavily subsidized by Microsoft's other products, e.g., PC operating systems. For its part, Sony gaming economics have been up and down over the years-- they made money on the Playstation platform between 2000 and 2006 but lost about three billion from 2007 to the present, in large part due to the PS3.

As much **** as Nintendo has received for its loss of market share in the late 1900's and early 2000's, it has made a profit from its video gaming divisions every year during this time period. They have an economic model that focused on year-to-year profitability rather than market share or total sales per se.

okam

19th August 2009, 12:23 AM

The point wasn't really about the money itself, but that gaming is surpassing TV- and movie-watching as people's favourite pasttime. No need to worry about the gaming industry (or movie industry, for that matter).

Aeroracer

19th August 2009, 12:56 AM

Wii is taking over.. the main retailers are deliberatly pushing this product and xbox and ps3 get the back shelve. personally i think the Wii is good family fun and funny but its got short term appeal. to much hassle to jump up and down all day.plus i got my dance mat on my ps2 i still play which i prefer anyway.:hyper:hyper:hyper

Frances_Penfold

19th August 2009, 01:03 AM

Okam, I'm not sure it matters how many people spend time gaming if, in the end, the creation of video game hardware/software is not economically viable.

That's what is concerning about technology-driven gaming-- it's so expensive that lots and lots of consumers need to buy the product to make it worth the effort. Several folks in this thread complain that publishers push sequels and clones of established franchises (definitely something I agree with BTW). This reflects the desire to play it safe because development of a new IP is very risky for sales. Why develop a cool new property like "Beyond Good & Evil" when you can develop a "Tomb Raider" sequel that is familiar to consumers and thus likely to garner at least modest sales?

I think EA recognised the error of their ways last year, taking risks on both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, and good on them for it.

Yes, I agree. Activision seems to have taken EA's place as king of the franchise milking. Unfortunately it seems that EA's effort didn't pay off much in software sales :(

I think as far as independent game distribution is concerned though, digital distribution such as Steam, PSN or XBLA is the way forward where publishing costs aren't as immense. For example, a game such as Audiosurf would never have sold well in the shops.

I agree 100%. Concerns about DRM notwithstanding, digital downloading should (and already has) made indie games available to consoles in a way that it never has been before.

okam

19th August 2009, 09:37 AM

Okam, I'm not sure it matters how many people spend time gaming if, in the end, the creation of video game hardware/software is not economically viable.

That's never going to happen. There will always be a market, there will always be buyers. IMO it's silly to "worry" about any branch of the entertainment industry at all. If there is one thing that is not going to come to end any time soon, it's just that.

swift killer

19th August 2009, 11:16 AM

The big problem I notice with franchise/license games is that they the market look at the innovative games and the games which are far better that the crap they play and automatically dismiss it as '****' just because they have not heard of it before.

Frances_Penfold

19th August 2009, 03:27 PM

There will always be a market, there will always be buyers.

I hope you are right, Okam :)

At the very least, I don't want Wipeout to go away!

Lance

19th August 2009, 04:02 PM

IH8YOU

19th August 2009, 04:42 PM

Lance, you're right. I've never thought of it like that - but look at what iTunes did to "real world" music stores. Half of them are already gone, and the few that remain, have utter (@*$ for selections. Game stores will take a far greater hit, should we move to network distribution exclusivity.

DividedXZero

19th August 2009, 04:50 PM

^ Indeed, that just makes me happy that I've been collecting ps1 "rare gems" for several years now....although some can be found on psn, it's not the same feeling as having the original copy. Although i'm still missing few..but i cant think of many off the top of my head.

Intelligence Cube is one of them, some odd ones that i did get my hands on are Zero Divide (ironic isnt it?), Loaded, Reloaded, the Parasite Eve's, and King's Field (I & II)
(sorry for the off topic, I'm just proud of some of these)

Aeroracer

19th August 2009, 08:17 PM

I'm hoping that downloading never becomes the exclusive means of distribution. That exclusivity would kill the local gamestores; it would probably destroy the used game market that makes it possible for me and other poor folk to afford to buy a game and make sure we have our own copy under our control, something which is not likely to be lost or mucked up by a glitch, nor deliberately altered without our consent.

thats the upside of keeping the gamestores in business.

downside is game stores only care about profit and will happily promote crap to the public and under promote or in some situations not even stock desired products. if they go out of business i wont miss them.

downloaded stuff will be cheaper as well.

second hand games are cool cos they are like next to nothing in price and are just as good as brand new games.:hyper:hyper

Z_Zoquis

19th August 2009, 09:51 PM

Second-hand games aren't "next to nothing" here. Gamestop generally sells them for no more than about a 20% or so discount. Newer games are usually like $59.95 new or $49.95 - $54.95 used. Not much of a deal really... if the price is a big issue for you, you should love downloadables as they are way less expensive ftmp - less than used copies of disc games.

Would D/L games put stores out of business? Yeah, probably. But thats life. The internet is putting newspapers and magazines out of business. You can't stop progress. Theres lots of stuff to sell that can't be downloaded...

As far as having a hard copy of yr games in case the big bad companies do something to alter them without yr approval, well...the market will take care of that. If a dev is doing things like that they won't be selling alot of games for very long will they? I mean word gets around pretty quick in this day and age.

Really, I just think downloading is an extremely efficient way to do things. Why do I need a big plastic case and a disc laying around my house? Its just clutter and its unnecessary 99% of the time.

Lance

20th August 2009, 03:31 PM

My local GameStop is selling Xbox 360 and Nintendo DS games for less than half of the new cost. Haven't looked at the PS3 games [a smaller section than the 360 section in this particular store], so I don't know about those.

------

"downside is game stores only care about profit and will happily promote crap to the public ..."

I have never bought crap just because it's promoted, nor even because it's popular. So I'm not sure this is any more of a downside than it is in worldwide business in general. And Sony and Microsoft gaming networks also only care about profits.

Aeroracer

20th August 2009, 11:15 PM

you may of not bought crap..maybe cos you are smart..unfortunatley many people are real dumb and will buy a game if its number one in the game store chart. unaware that these positions are bought beforehand and have nothing to do with popularity.

people do buy crap thats promoted to them.thats why they make crap games like film tie ins for example.

Lance

21st August 2009, 01:58 AM

And the difference in crapness between bought-online crap and store-bought crap is?

I think that overpriced games of low quality will still be made by design or by accident regardless of the distribution method. Even during a golden era.

Sometimes a genius little technical idea like the added touch screen on the DS will stimulate creative imagination, and sometimes it won't. Same goes for more powerful consoles. I suspect that that eras of a large number of great games just happen with the flow of events, the random coming together or falling apart of collections of game conceivers, programmers, artists, and the mental place they've come to in their development as humans and in their field of expertise.

Also, there comes a time when a particular set of characters or game mechanic or theme gets overused, and gets dropped, only to be rethought years later. That happens in television, too. Particular genres come in or go out of favour. Some years you just get lucky when everything comes right together.

Frances_Penfold

21st August 2009, 05:17 AM

This is the first time I have EVER seen Gamestop defended in a gaming forum :eek

okam

22nd August 2009, 05:24 PM

Ehh, someone game me negative rep for saying the film industry does not equal Hollywood, wtf.

Anyway, music is still released on vinyl record (albeit usually targetted at collectors) and on CDs – biggest difference here is that not only music stores sell music CDs anymore, you can find them at gas stations, the post office and various department stores etc here).

I allready see that tendency with video games too; games being sold at more and more places that aren't exclusively games stores. Some large grocery stores have an isle of DVD movies and video games, etc. It's becoming less of a "specialty product".

While I do think that downloading games is practical, I do prefer to have a proper disc/box. And if you do put something up for download that is also available in stores, offer it at a lower price, please... Burnout Paradise on the PSN is the same price as in stores, and Puzzle Quest Galactrix is also the same price as the PSP version in stores. I should think it would be cheaper since I am not getting production, printing, packaging, shipping from the other side of the planet, etc.

rushin

24th August 2009, 10:39 AM

there is an argument to be made that second hand sales are killing the games industry. Quite a good one sadly Lance :(

the only people making money from 2nd hand games are the retail outlets. not a penny to devs/publishers/anyone involved in actually making the game. This in itself is bad enough, but then consider the stores can and will sell the same box over and over again making lots of money.

I think digital distribution is the only way to go, and until that time arrives fully i have vowed never to buy a game second hand. Fundamentally its a slap in the face to the dev studio that spent years making it, and just encouraging the uncaring avarice of retail.

The market is certainly in a slump, maybe another problem is there are too many (crap) games being released. Loads of games have been pushed back to 2010 because the xmas time period is too crowded. more quality, less quantity would be a nice but unlikely concept for everyone :)

swift killer

24th August 2009, 12:42 PM

Christmas time the big problem for the industry would be idiotic family shoppers who know nothing about gaming and judge by covers and brand names... i remember last gear the frikkin Shrek licensed game was number 1 in the charts FFS!

I also agree with the second hand games issue, surely copyright laws allow for the resale of games to be illegal, this is why I look at the retailers who sell second hand games as operating businesses via illegal means.

okam

24th August 2009, 02:13 PM

http://www.championshipmanager.co.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1088

Choose your own price... Worked for Radiohead I guess (I paid 5 euros for "In Rainbows" myself, pretty much the same as the "Nice Price" CDs in stores here). Won't be picking up CSM though, not a football fan ^^

Lance

24th August 2009, 02:42 PM

there is an argument to be made that second hand sales are killing the games industry. ~snip~

the only people making money from 2nd hand games are the retail outlets. not a penny to devs/publishers/anyone involved in actually making the game. This in itself is bad enough, but then consider the stores can and will sell the same box over and over again making lots of money.

If the developers and publishers aren't making enough money to cover costs and have a reasonable total profit whilst selling new games for 60$ US, then they're either overcharging, thus killing the total volume of their their sales and profits, or undercharging making too small an amount per sale for the total sales volume to cover costs. It's about finding the right balance. It is their own responsibility to do this, not the responsibility of the stores nor the government.

Second hand sales in retail stores are a distribution service that has nothing to do with development costs or publishing costs, and simply aids one person to sell property they paid for to someone who couldn't afford to buy that property at its new value. It's that service that is being sold.

To forbid someone to sell their own property would be wrong. To block the poor from ever having the chance to own the game would be wrong.

DISRUPTOR

25th August 2009, 03:42 PM

It appears that gamepad based games are on the decline in favour of interactive games such as found on Wii. I heard Xbox are going to release a new interactive controller next year to compete with Wii.

Lance

25th August 2009, 05:17 PM

It's called Natal, no controller at all except your own body. It's already been demonstrated at the E3 show, I think. It's a small box with a camera and a couple of other goodies, and electronics that analyse your body's movement. It sits near the console and display screen.

Rapier Racer

3rd September 2009, 09:45 PM

You mean I'd have to get up to play games? But I can't be bothered with that!

Also to further expand what you said about used games, not only do I agree but also sometimes you can't quite find what you want in the new games sections, like my copy of Wipeout original, I don't often go for used games due to worrying about disk conditions but sometimes its the only way to go.

Lance

3rd September 2009, 10:45 PM

The only time I've had a problem with a used game working correctly was with a cart for the DS. Wouldn't work at all. But this may have been a problem even in the Golden Era. ;)

KIGO1987

3rd September 2009, 11:20 PM

This thread is on boarderline of starting a flame war,

I would say the golden era of gaming would of been the 90s. From SuperNES to the PSX. all good days where games where good in depth, not in rendering and specifications n stuff.

ACE-FLO

4th September 2009, 12:20 AM

The way I see it, the gaming industry has already passed through many era's already. Computer gaming is commanding serious £$ all over the world - and if the technology of a next gen console forces the end of an era for a previous format, then hey! That's just business.

Yeah, there are some die hard fans out there of the snes psx etc, but they aint the majority.

Progress with gaming technology doesn't stop with the PS3, Wii etc either, these "era's" will end too!

Lance

4th September 2009, 02:20 AM

This thread is on boarderline of starting a flame war,

nonsense

RedScar

5th September 2009, 07:02 PM

@Ace
People whine that making a gaming PC is expensive and for the most part it is if you are looking for top of the line parts. You can make a really solid gaming PC for much cheaper then you'd expect (still more then a console though). PC gaming is in a rut right now but it will come back. The FPS, MMO, and RTS genres are PC, and not matter how popular consoles become I will only play them on my PC. WASD 4 LIFE
/fanboyism

@Lance
the 2nd hand sale of games is broken. I was in an EB looking at the price of blazblue ($70 OUCH, didn't buy) and a gentleman asked how much he could trade his son's PS2 in towards a PS3. 9.99 was all the dude would give, to I say WHAT! The PS2 is old I know but considering they will resell that sucker to $59.99+ (price from EBgames US) they are ripping him off. Its the same for games, you get no money for it and they resell it for 2/3 of max price making a huge profit.

ACE-FLO

5th September 2009, 07:16 PM

Although a PC can be used to play games, it's still a PC. A Personal Computer, designed to do a lot more than just play games. However, a console is designed just to play games... the psp took the concept further and gave it Internet capability, and a host of other features.

But since you gave me the example of PC gaming - would it not be true for me to say that in a couple of years, you'll be fishing around for more hardware? for your PC? So you can play the latest releases without getting PC Syndrome?

Lance

5th September 2009, 08:21 PM

RedScar

5th September 2009, 08:40 PM

True, but what is to say you won't do the same with the next generation of consoles? Although the lifespan of consoles is much longer then gaming PC's you will end up buying a new one sooner or later. The next gen of consoles will be even closer to being a PC IF not a full on PC with a restricted OS.

The PS3 was $600 at release, so the next generation will either cost more or Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo will have to take a major loss in selling it to the user. This is not likely since the PS3 already puts Sony in the hole as it is. So how can you improve the technology in a console without the price going up? You can't. PC doesn't do this, since parts/software are all made by anyone of the many manufactures. They make a profit and are able to fund R&D to improve the technology.

I have already planned on getting my next rig when I graduate University or after this current year because my rig is now starting to show its age. I will probably have a budget of 2k-3k Canadian on it. I'm not flustered by the price thought, since I know exactly what I get for my money. My current rig has given me well over 2 months straight worth of gaming, and considering I still use it to play Battlefield 2 (and Point of Existence3 mod), Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2, Company of Heroes, and whatever MMO I am playing at the current time doesn't show signs of slowing. My PS3 has earned me maybe 100hrs across all my games, with 60 of those in WOHD. I enjoy my PS3 but my purchase of it has been underwhelming to say the least since I can't seem to find many games I enjoy on it (WOHD being the only exception).
/PC Fanboyism....again

@Lance
Ok yes, the price of a used game differs greatly, but if can buy a used version of SC4 for say $25, then I can guarantee that the person that traded it in only got $15 MAX for it. That is bat poop crazy if you ask me.

Lance

5th September 2009, 08:46 PM

There are even fewer PC makers than there appear to be. Even the big names just assemble parts from the same tiny coterie of actual hardware makers.

RedScar

5th September 2009, 09:00 PM

True, but there are still more then just Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. I can buy almost any computer part from over 10 brands if I want to, which allows me to pick the part that is most effective for me in cost and performance. When I buy a console its that console only, I get no choice at all save from picking a different model.

Frances_Penfold

6th September 2009, 01:26 AM

RedScar, I didn't pay anywhere near such a high percentage for used games. The most expensive one of the first four was 25 dollars US. The others were 18, 13, and 10. all of those are 360 games, if that makes any difference in cost. Also, that cost was before taking off the 10 percent discount. All of them are first-line franchise games like Soul-Calibur IV, NFS Pro-Street, Forza 2 Motorsport, and such. Typical prices at my local GameStop. They do want 60 dollars for a PS2 console in original size, though.

Lance, keep in mind that all of the games you mentioned are older titles, and can be bought NEW for $25 or less online.

NSF Pro-Street can be bought new for $20 on Amazon and $15 from folks listed on the Amazon marketplace

Soul-Calibur IV can be bought new for $26 on Amazon and $22 from folks listed on the Amazon marketplace.

If you keep an eye out for online deals, you can usually pick up the older titles on a sale (10-30% off) that matches or beats the used prices offered by Gamestop.

I certainly think that Gamestop has a *right* to sell second hand games and that consumers should feel free to buy games second hand. But I also think that Gamestop has a parasitic relationship on the games industry due to their focus on used game sales and that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are trying hard to decrease their role in sales. I can't hardly blame them.

Anyway, my personal experience is that used games sales by Gamestop are RARELY competitive versus purchases of new game sales when you are talking about games that are from 0 - 4 years old or so ;)

ACE-FLO

6th September 2009, 02:30 AM

When I buy a console its that console only, I get no choice at all save from picking a different model.

Yes, but you do know that game devs, make games to run on a specific hardware setup (i.e - PS3), and continue to do so throughout the lifespan of the console. Upgrading the parts to a console makes no sense to me. I mean, if it aint broken, don't try and fix it... na am sayan?

Also, with regard to Gaming PC's - they cost a lot more than a console, a lot lot more...

RedScar

6th September 2009, 02:57 AM

I know, 2000-3000 is well above the cost of my PS3. I'm just saying that most people think that you MUST spend that amount to get into PC gaming, when really you can get a solid gaming PC for under 1k. Don't expect to play games on high with full AA, but you can still play them.

"If it aint broken, don't try and fix it" is how you say PCs are? Nothing is broken, but the bar is raised. Without the advancements in all aspects of computer hardware the PS3 and 360 would not exisit. Why settle for the same old technology when you can get better? PC gaming isn't just about the games, its about your rig, your passion as a PC enthusiast. When you show up to a BYOC lan party and you have an awesome rig, people compliment it. Sure its not a cheap hobby, but not many are these days :)

Yes there is also the bonus that a developer can design a game for a specific set of hardware, but what about down the road when that hardware limits the developer? With PCs you can always program with the newest stuff, while you optimize for the older stuff.

ACE-FLO

6th September 2009, 03:18 AM

lol, my "not broken - don't fix it" comment had nowt to do with PC's - but more to do with your desire to upgrade a console with hardware.

Also, saying that consoles owe their existence to the PC is flawed imo. Back in the 80's I had a nintendo donkey kong handheld device... Way before the PC hit Windows 3.1

About hardware limiting a developer, devs know the boundaries hardware imposes. Take the PS3 ok, not all PS3 games make the most out of the engine they were designed for. Hardly limiting is it? :)