1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Why the hate for the consoles?

Discussion in 'CivRev - General Discussions' started by LordRahl, May 14, 2008.

  1. LordRahl

    LordRahl The Objectivist

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,500
    Location:
    NYC, USA
    PC gamers brought this onto themselves.

    There is only one major reason for game industry moving away from the PC market and towards the consoles. Piracy. I've read somewhere almost 90% of games for PC's are being pirated. So what there are more PC's out there than consoles, when the companies can't make money on their games, because people copy them instead of buying them.

    On the other hand, piracy is much less common on consoles, especially the new generation - and virtually non-existent for PS3 (their encryption scheme has yet to be hacked, despite almost 2 years on the market).

    I was always a big PC fan. I kept building/upgrading mine at home with latest hardware for over a decade. I hated consoles as an inferior, overpriced machine. It all changed when I got a PS3 almost a year ago. I bought it because I knew Blue-Ray is going to take over sooner or later, and didn't care that much about games.

    But soon enough, I realized that a console has many advantages to a computer, especially as far as Multiplayer games are concerned. First of all - I can play everything on my big-screen, and not have to worry about resolution compatibility, or keeping my PC rig next to the TV. The whole GUI is much sleeker too, and fits more with the whole home-theater theme. And I can play while laying down on my couch, instead of sitting at the desk.

    Finally - exclusive titles, like Uncharted, Grand Tourismo, Eye of Judgment, GTA4, can only be found on a console, and not PC.

    I believe that is the direction the market will be heading in. You can see how much money is being made on console games. At the very best PC users can expect mediocre ports a year or two later, if that. Sure PC's still have the edge as far as strategy games go - but for how long? I already have a wireless keyboard, with a touchpad for my PS3. I'm glad my favorite game (Civ), is making it onto my favorite system. Hopefully more will follow.
     
  2. BaconLad

    BaconLad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Manchester/England
    99% agree with you.

    all i would say is that on a personal level i feel that the industry is swaying towards consoles not because of piracy, but because there is only so much you can get from strategy games (which dominate the pc format). there is a massive sense of achievement involved with games like civ...
    but console gaming can give you an incredibly deep experiance that stems around unique story telling and character development that can now rival hollywood productions.
    uncharted, heavenly sword, resistance, and assasins creed for example (to name but a few) were like imerssive interactive movies. ive never got that from my pc, i get it regulary from my ps3 and i genuinely feel sad when i finish a game because it's over. thats why i go out and buy another game - repeat the experiance. and they just keep getting better and better...
    ive spent more money on ps3 games in the last 18months than i have on pc games (never copys) in the last 5 years. and im sure that im not the only one.
    i wouldnt say that the pc is in decline, but i would say there is probably more demand for the experiance a console offers. (just my opinion)
     
  3. Civfan333

    Civfan333 full metal alchemist

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,603
    Location:
    Hidden base
    Hello, crysis anyone? The best graphics ever so far, and top-of-the-line computers have better graphics than any PS3...World of Warcraft is also NEVER coming to consoles...
     
  4. Schuesseled

    Schuesseled Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2,081
    world of warcraft is rubbish.

    You'd have to remortgage your house to get a top-of-the-line pc.

    Consoles are so much more practical, but i prefer to use both.
     
  5. Bigfoot3814

    Bigfoot3814 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    6,211
    Location:
    Combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell
    I don't think you should expect CivRevolution to be on the same level of depth and complexity that the PC games are. This will probably end up a more arcadey version.

    A lot of people don't like this because they feel the game is being cheapened. Like Battlefield 2 on consoles.
     
  6. BaconLad

    BaconLad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Manchester/England
    can the ps3 compete with a top of the range pc?
    i got more than just a normal console when i parted with my 425quid.

    crysis has got stunning graphics, no doubt about that.
    it is scheduled to be released on ps3 sometime next year, so when it comes out we will know just how much the ps3 can compare with a top of the line pc...
    but gaming isnt always about graphics. if it plays good - thats fantastic.
    if it looks good -thats a bonus.

    also, console gamers dont want world of warcraft...
     
  7. Helmling

    Helmling Philosopher King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,666
    I found the titles you mentioned to, like all single-player action games, devolve into tedious exercises in redundancy. Take Assassin's Creed: "Oh, this time I have to kill 10 Templars instead of 7..." That's what passes for "immersive interactive movies?" So far, the video game industry has not found a way for complex storylines to exist in games as anything but scripts that the player is led through like a bull with a bit in his nose.

    Not so with strategy titles like Civ--and I may be out of touch with the actual numbers but I seriously doubt strategy titles "dominate" PC gaming--which generate a different "story" with each play.

    What we really need is for games--PC and console--to grow out of the molds that have been set down and limited the growth of interactive entertainment as an art form for a decades now. Take the FPS. It's such a rut. The gameplay dynamic has not changed significantly since Doom. Yes, there are flashier graphics, more complex weapons, but ultimately the single-player FPS always ends up being a (usually long) series of trial and error to solve some contrived puzzle to get a door open in order to figure out, through trial and error, exactly how to kill the particular enemies in that particular room. The only FPS single-player game I've bothered to complete in recent memory is CoD4, and that was only because I read in advance that it was mercifully short. Even so, it took me about 45 minutes to finally successfully storm that damned missile silo at the end.

    Civ struggles free of that mold through open gameplay. I'm looking forward to Spore because I hope it will do the same, but I think I've bought my last FPS.
     
  8. BaconLad

    BaconLad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Manchester/England
    i played through assasins creed twice, and experianced something different both times. theres a hell of a lot more to it than killing 7 templars - then killing 10......................................
    theres plenty of different ways to finish each mission, and theres a really unique story line going on - in 2 different eras (past and present)
    the story drives you to keep playing, to uncover just what the hell is going on...

    you have obviously never played - ico, shadow of the colososs, final fantasy, gta, manhunt, okami, metal gear solid, resident evil... i found these storylines more rich and engrossing than anything to come out of hollywood because rather than an observer, i was a participant in the story.

    im not saying civ is bad, i love civ, i jst find console gaming on the whole is better than pc gaming, but as i said in a earlier post, this is just MY OPINION.
    what ever you prefer is fine.
     
  9. Civfan333

    Civfan333 full metal alchemist

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,603
    Location:
    Hidden base
    Actually, I'm pretty sure that Crysis is NEVER coming to consoles...
     
  10. Thrallia

    Thrallia Prodigal Staffer GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,836
    Location:
    Maryland
    Crytek has repeatedly stated Crysis will not come to consoles ever...and even if it did, they would be putting it on the 360 because it is easier to port to(and just as powerful)
     
  11. BaconLad

    BaconLad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Manchester/England
    well, according to psm3 magazine, someone from the developers of crysis, (during an interview) that a ps3 and 360 port was in the works and well under way...
     
  12. Sub

    Sub in omnia paratus

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    600
    Everyone should check out Stardocks (creators of gal civ) view on piracy. You might not agree with it, but it is a good read.

    http://forums.galciv2.com/303512
     
  13. Thrallia

    Thrallia Prodigal Staffer GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,836
    Location:
    Maryland
    yes...I'm gonna believe a magazine that is paid for by Sony over the people that actually made the game...
     
  14. Thrallia

    Thrallia Prodigal Staffer GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,836
    Location:
    Maryland
    When it came out, yes it could...now it cannot. DirectX10 pushed PCs past the PS3 and X360.

    Yes, you got more than just a normal console, you got a console and a Blu-Ray player...that's about it though...you paid extra to get the Blu-Ray player, btw. You could have gotten a better console for cheaper by getting the 360 ;)(prepares for inevitable onslaught of attacks)
     
  15. warpstorm

    warpstorm Yumbo? Yumbo!

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,688
    Location:
    Snack Food Capital of the World
  16. BaconLad

    BaconLad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Manchester/England
    psm3 magazine is a unofficial mag, it doesnt recieve any funding what so ever from sony, and the info was provided by one of the lead developers of crysis.
     
  17. BaconLad

    BaconLad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Manchester/England

    theres regular firmware updates that are free (yes, thats rite, ps3 owners can update/upgrade for free) these increase the performance of the machine. which at the moment is only operating at about 35percent of it's maximum capabillity. just think whats to come in the next 2/3 years.

    ive owned 2 360's which in the opinion of most are poorly and cheaply manufactured, they both died after a few months and i wasnt that impressed with them anyway, theres a 30percent failure rate for the 360 compared to 3percent for the ps3 and i think the ps3 is superb.
    microsoft make a bigger profit per unit sale than sony do on there machines, because sony used better quality components.
    xbox live admittedly is better than the psn network, but you would expect microsoft to provide a better internet service than sony, but sony give us the psn network for free...

    decent blu ray players are actually pretty expensive, buying a ps3 solely as a blu ray player wouldnt be a bad investment. but thers more to a ps3 than that, your ps3 can do just about anything that a mac can.
    if you really wanted to, it could double up as a pc (with linux) remember the ps3 has 8 processers, so it can be pretty powerful. much more than a 360.
     
  18. warpstorm

    warpstorm Yumbo? Yumbo!

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,688
    Location:
    Snack Food Capital of the World
    What profit are you talking about? Sony still loses over $100 dollars for each PS3 sold (I've heard recent estimates that it is much higher than this). I think Microsoft still loses money on each 360 sold also, but they were getting very close to break even last I heard.

    Sony lost around $1.2 Billion last year on their games division (which is a big improvement over the $2 billion they lost the year before). With any luck next year they will get costs down low enough to turn a profit.

    What is the big deal? 360 owners also get free updates (usually every quarter). My laptop also has free firmware updates and patches.

    The biggest things that I see making the PS3 hard to work with (besides the substandard tools that Sony sells developers) are the aforementioned 8 processors (this is a simplification of the true architecture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)) which are hard to get the best performance out of and the limit of 256 MBs of RAM (the other RAM is dedicated to GPU) as opposed to the unified 512 MBs that the 360 uses (allowing a developer to budget the RAM between CPU and GPU at their discretion).

    I am not slamming the PS3, it is a good machine (if somewhat harder to program for than the 360). If Microsoft doesn't come out with a new machine in a few years, it will likely become the dominant console for hardcore gamers in that time frame. (The Wii is looking poised to be the overall dominant console).
     
  19. Schuesseled

    Schuesseled Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2,081
    thats the most rediculous thing i'v ever heard, you can't lose money on something and break even.

    When P < VC, your screwed, if your talking P < AC then thats fine, fixed costs can be re-couperated in the long-run. Besides that he didn't say sony was making profits, he said they were losing more money on each console (again comepletley wrong, they are just not making as much profit) becasue they are of higher quality and have higher costs, now tihs also porbably incorrect, they probably have jsut as much mark-up on thier console and microsoft, it's jsut gonna take them longer to pay off the cost of development, because they also spent more on that.
     
  20. warpstorm

    warpstorm Yumbo? Yumbo!

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,688
    Location:
    Snack Food Capital of the World
    I meant that the cost (to produce) per unit was finally getting to the point where they (Microsoft) were no longer losing money for each one sold. I should have been more clear.

    Yes, both Microsoft and Sony run their games divisions at a loss for a few years when they introduce new machines (Nintendo doesn't believe in this and always sells their machines for more than they cost to produce - since their company is their games division this makes sense).

    Google it if you don't believe. Working in the industry as I do, I believe.

    ps3 loss per unit

    and

    360 loss per unit

    or even

    sony game division loss

    should do the trick.

    The strategy they are following is to take a loss on the consoles for a few years, but make money later by taking a substantial cut of all software sales (and hardware add-ons, for example controllers) on that console.
     

Share This Page