Will next-gen consoles overtake the PC?

[Ed Oscuro]

First off - I don't think that's going to happen. I've borrowed the title because I think it frames the question well; I'm merely writing why I *don't* think this will happen.

Sony, I assume, wants to keep their next-gen tech non-open, non-PC'd. They probably make more money off their home entertainment business than they do their rebranded PC line, and furthermore consoles are easier for Sony to use as leverage for their movies. For companies like Sony and Matsuhita - and of companies in all sorts of fields from farm equipment to razor blades - control and development of all the products you use in a certain field, from the big, multi-grand hardware pieces down to the standards you use (i.e. Blu-Ray versus the enhanced DVD standard, whatever it's called), and including control of the media you see as well, would be perfect.

It would allow them to diversify immensely; they would be able to produce things in-house that wouldn't be possible in partnerships - synergy to the extreme, if that means anything - and any element of the total package that was underperforming would be shored up by another, and enriched as well. We've already seen this in consoles, as software sales are used to make up for losses on consoles sold. Including copies of a Spider-Man movie with your PSP gives Sony a more complete package that not only has more going for it, but gives Sony's movie biz another outlet for sales. Media is something they desperately needed in the days of Beta...but enough about Sony.

Sony's partnered with IBM and Toshiba, two companies that very likely want to take the fight to IBM in a very direct way. The PS3 isn't a general purpose device (for what I can tell). PCs are and have become irreplacable, and I think IBM is going to use the Cell processor to help try to get back into the desktop PC market. We'll see. It's been said point-blank that plans for Cell include home networking equipment and - of course - something like computers must be in the works. I think Sony has decided they aren't quite able to come up with a PC replacement *yet,* so for the moment a PS3 will do. Don't be surprised if the PS3 ends up wearing many hats, however.

This is huge, and this is the real Revolution. My apologies to any fanboys lacking in intestinal fortitude, but Sony's leveraged this so perfectly. A year ago - heck, even three months ago - I would've said that Matsuhita possibly had a chance to make some progress in this field of a total set-top-box, and I had thought I'd seen them saying so. Well, I should've known better. They don't own the media Sony does, and they don't have the content creation capability.

As for the graphics power, I don't see anything here to suggest the graphics card companies are suddenly going to stop their work for PCs. At best (for the consoles), this is a draw. That's not to say I don't expect anything less than spectacular results from the new gen of hardware, though; I've had my fill of lousy color depth in third-person sneakers like Splinter Cell.

Anyhow, comment away, and stuff. I know my language is pretty...obtuse, but I'm hoping it's easy to figure out.

[Avatard]

Uhh, your post didn't really match the topic very well. I'm kinda confused.
The XBox is practicly a PC....the 2 will become practically indistinguishable one day.

So, no. Consoles are following in the PCs footsteps drooling to be like them. PCs have way too much flexibility.

P3, XBox 360, Revolution, its all the same. They will all play games, all be online, all be wireless. Who cares if one has a few more mhz than the other, or cell processing, or built in back scratchers. I'm gonna buy the console that has the games I want to play. A lot of times being "different" doesn't equate to having an "advantage". I've never bought a console based on "oh man, this one has more mhz, its uber l33ter than the other one". Pfft, thats nuts. And all of them are structured after PCs.

[Zadoc]

The next gen won't overtake the PC, but the PC won't overshadow the consoles this generation. Why? Because of standardization.

There is a lot more money in the console market, a well known fact. PC developers will develop games that will be just good enough to run on the consoles. So, when they make their Windows version of the game, it won't look a whole lot better.

And I think we've got at least two years of this kind of thinking.

[Humanoid]

In pure terms of power, PCs will hold their own. For one thing, 64 bit computing is on the rise. Also, technologies like SLI allow for great graphical power at the lowest possible price. Not to mention that in June, AMD is rolling out its dual core 64 bit processors. Overclocking can greatly spread all of the above up, also.

But as a poster ahead of me already stated, it doesn't really matter, since the consoles are quickly becoming PCs you attach to your television. The computer industry is coming full in that way, I guess.

[Crazycarl]

its funny i herd "death of pc gaming" from a lot of mag. when the brung out the first next gen systems (ps2,xbox,gamecube) and it seems to me that the pc is still live a kickin. so dont worry the pc is going to be still around, since gaming wise its a beast all to itself.

[squidblatt]

I would love to see more PC style games on consoles, so I'm hoping there will be some overtaking going on. As I see it, the biggest obstacle are the input devices. The PC games I want to play tend to be heavy duty strategics or rpgs with tons of stats and screens, and I don't see them translating well to typical console controllers.

If you're talking about the latest groundbreaking FPS, I guess PCs will continue to get the best versions, but I don't see more than just a few developers making them.

It's hard to predict what will happen to PC gaming; it seems logical to say that it will shrink and fizzle, but people have been saying that for years while the market has continued to grow.

[Ed Oscuro]

Uhh, your post didn't really match the topic very well. I'm kinda confused.
More like...a LOT confused. The XBox is definitely not a replacement for a PC, and "likeness" is irrelevant.

What I'm trying to get at is whether Sony and its partners will try to create devices for your living room (like set-top boxes) that will supplant your PC, and compete with the PC industry, or whether the players are going to use Cell processor tech to re-enter the conventional PC market.

That Sony and the other players (IBM + Toshiba) will choose one of these options isn't in question. That's been the grand plan right along, and unless they messed up big time they should be on schedule.

This isn't about the new XBox (powerful as it might be) or the Revolution. I'm not even getting into that, as they aren't even *intended* to compete at the sort of level the Cell is supposed to.

[SoulBlazer]

Not sure what you mean by 'overtake'. I don't see PC gaming as increasing in sales from where they currently standing, but the PC always has a advantage for some types of games. For example, I love Paradox's strategy/history games like Victoria, Hearts of Iron, Europa Univeralis II....but due to the nature of the games no consoles will get them. Some genre's of games like adventure games and FPS are also done much better and easier on the PC. And the biggest adventage is that small companies and developers can still make a game for almost nothing and release it online and have it do quite well, without having to pay huge licencing fees like companies do for consoles. PC's will always do some things better then consoles, so no danger of them being 'overtaken' -- that is, until a dedicated machine comes out that can do everything a console AND a top of the line PC can do. And I don't see THAT happening for another 10 years or so. :)

[Ed Oscuro]

Not sure what you mean by 'overtake'.
Ugh...Does Sony want to replace the PC (Yes)? And...what else?

[Spartacus]

If I understand where you are going with this, I definitely get the impression both Sony and Microsoft seem to think that one day there will be an all encompassing entertainment widget in everyones living room. Sony, I think, wants to license/manufacture and provide content for it. Microsoft, I think, wants to make damn sure that what ever it is, it uses some version of Microsoft software for it's operating system and if they have to produce the hardware to make sure that happens, then dammit they will! Will this widget be a combo DVD/CD/MP3 player, game system, PC, fax/printer, digital camera/camcorder, cell phone and coffee maker? I don't know. It wouldn't make much sense if you needed a widget in every room to let you do different things in different places, but let's say the widget could provide different content for every TV and monitor in your home simultaneously. One person could watch a DVD in one room, while in another room someone plays a video game streamed to them, while in another room someone surfs the internet, while in another room, ect, ect, ect. Well, now I'm intrigued! This generation? No. Someday? Probably.
Ohh, and by the way, I don't think Sony will win the widget race. Thwarting Sony is a global pastime.

[Yago]

Do you serisouly think console can compete with this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20050526/tc_pcworld/121019

First off, PC's are advancing ALL the time. When a console releases it is using the most advanced technology available at the time. Consoles have a 2-5 year shelf life, PC's have a 3 month shelf life. Meaning, by the time a console comes out, a PC is already taking another jump forward wether it be in sound, graphics, or processing power. To answer the question, consoles will never be able to come close to that of a personal computer. Not unless they released a new console every 6 months.

[Jagasian]

Last generation's consoles have already overtaken the PC market, at least if you go by sales figures. Console games sell more copies and make more money than PC games. It is a simple fact. However, PC gaming will always be around for the simple reason that people have PCs and PCs are easily capable of running games. So while PC gaming will never die, it was overtaken by console games at least a few generations ago. Even the best selling PC game of all time, The Sims, as not sold nearly has many copies as, say, one of the popular Final Fantasy games.

[Anexanhume]

When the consoles launch, they will most likely have graphics techonology not on the market yet ( like xbox ), and ps3's 8 cores at 3.2 ghz generates a lot of power. Sure, they will be ahead of PC's for a while, but eventually the PC's power will supplant their positions once again. What's threatening to PC's is that Sony and Microsoft's strategies seem to be one of replacing the PC, as some have stated. There will always be a die hard following among the PC gamers, but with the online advantage disappearing, PC's are having less advantages. Sure, some argue that a certain type of game is just better on a PC, but again, is that number strong enough to keep supporting the PC market? Personally, I don't think the PC market is going anywhere, but it will be interesting to see what effect the next-gen consoles have.

[thegreatescape]

Even the best selling PC game of all time, The Sims, as not sold nearly has many copies as, say, one of the popular Final Fantasy games.

Are you sure about that? Up until SIMS 2 was released, the original sims (and later Sims Deluxe) were a pretty common fixture on the Top 10 charts (in australia at least)..

On topic; its interesting to note how many FPS' are being released on consoles these days, compared to PC. PC will always have the higher quality FPS games, but the amount of ports and console exclusives seems to be ever rising. Definately a bad omen for the mainstay of PC gaming.

[Avatard]

Yea, I'm still confused. I can't compare apples to oranges bud. Nothing is overtaking PCs. So I guess thats my answer. And if Sony thinks they can they are nuts. I don't give a damn if its cell processing, or run by a processor constructed of poprocks. Its still gonna process data.

I'm not sure if I've ever purchased a Sony product, so best wishes on whatever they are doing. *shrug*

[Lady Jaye]

In terms of marketing, it is easier for a game maker to focus on consoles, mostly because of compatibility issues. My PS2 games work perfectly in any working PS2 console. Compare this with system requirements for games like Doom 3 on PC or Mac (in fact, the only Macs that can currently run Doom 3 properly without too much problem or slowdown are the G5 PowerPC and the G5 iMac...).

On the other hand, it is true that the fact that PC specs' are always changing is a plus in favor of PC games, if only because of the possibility to push the platform to the max.

Finally, an issue that isn't really an issue per se: PC games are still mostly designed with the keyboard in mind. The sheer number of shortcut keys required for some games makes it impossible to make the exact same game run on a console, even if the console and the computer were both running with the same level of specs. Although current controllers do have a lot of controls, and although it is possible to buy a keyboard for some consoles, the mentality is still keyboard = PC, controller = console.

[Ed Oscuro]

If I understand where you are going with this, I definitely get the impression both Sony and Microsoft seem to think that one day there will be an all encompassing entertainment widget in everyones living room. Sony, I think, wants to license/manufacture and provide content for it. Microsoft, I think, wants to make damn sure that what ever it is, it uses some version of Microsoft software for it's operating system
And that, right there, is why Sony has partnered with IBM and Toshiba. All of these companies would win big if they could overtake the Wintel monopoly - even if they just take a chunk out of it, that'll be enough.

Don't kid yourselves, people - the PC is a great tool but the trend has been to put processors in everything. Sooner or later the PC will disappear from desks and be integrated into every other useful appliance. Perhaps it's "later" instead of "sooner," but it will happen.

[TeddyRuxpin]

If anything, consoles will be equal (if not better) to the "average" home PC. Not everyone (especially kids/teens) have computers in their homes that have high-end video cards, or even CPUs higher than Penitum 2 or 3.

For example, someone I know who's 15, the best computer he has in his home is a 200mhz Pentium 1 system I upgraded the cpu on (to it's max I think) for no charge. Yet he has a Dreamcast and a Nintendo DS. Obviously he has an advtange with consoles vs their computer.

Consoles are more family friendly than computers, mainly since consoles sit near the TV which (most) people already own. Not so much so with computers. Computers require their own seperate space and furniture. Where as with consoles, they fit into the entertainment center and take up one plug (or more if it's a brick AC Adapter).

To older adults that aren't into technology, computers are considered to be an appliance you hide off to the side like the washer and dryer if possible. PCs require 4 or more plug connections by most users: PC, Monitor, Speakers, Printer ..and even more for people with scanners, network routers, cable modems, digital camera/PDA docks, etc.

In the sense of consoles surpassing PCs for gaming, I think it's already been done. Consoles are dedicated game machines that are all the same hardware wise... with a few exceptions such as the N64 expansion pak and the older -vs- newer PS2.

PCs vary too much hardware wise anymore. In the 90's when games required a certain OS, RAM & hard drive space. Now video card RAM has come into play in the past many years. Most computers, unless purchased with the intent for heavy gaming, don't come with very good vidoe cards. You could have a 3ghz computer with 2GB of RAM and it wouldn't be much good for gaming if you're running a 16MB card that the store/company stuck in there as a sick joke.

Not to mention controllers. Not everyone has the same type of controller. Sure, you can usually calibrate PC game controls to fit your controller, but what if the game has more controls than your controller has buttons? You end up having to use a controller and the keyboard. And/or you end up having to buy a controller with more buttons.

Well, I think I'm beginning to ramble on, so I'll stop now. :roll:

[Ed Oscuro]

If anything, consoles will be equal (if not better) to the "average" home PC. Not everyone (especially kids/teens) have computers in their homes that have high-end video cards, or even CPUs higher than Penitum 2 or 3.

For example, someone I know who's 15, the best computer he has in his home is a 200mhz Pentium 1 system I upgraded the cpu on (to it's max I think) for no charge. Yet he has a Dreamcast and a Nintendo DS. Obviously he has an advtange with consoles vs their computer.
Certainly not everyone will have a top-of-the-line PC, but Pentium IVs are going on 4 years old. Any serious PC gamer will have one or an AMD Athlon or XP, something along those lines.

What it comes down to is whether Sony will be able to convince people to follow them from games to...more. Whatever it is that's on the Sony PS3 roadmap, wherever they want to go.

For my part...eh...they'll be prying my PC from my DEAD COLD ARMS before I let any console maker replace my beloved gray box. Unless we see a huge user base of programs or the ability to run Windows/DOS stuff, I don't see how a PS3 (or any console) will be replacing that - same for other makers of OSes, incidentally.

[TeddyRuxpin]

Certainly not everyone will have a top-of-the-line PC, but Pentium IVs are going on 4 years old. Any serious PC gamer will have one or an AMD Athlon or XP, something along those lines.

Most of the market of gaming isn't for "serious gamers". It's for the (I believe) "11 to 16" market. Very few 11 to 16 year olds have (or will have in a few years even) current top of the line computers. And even if they do, they probably won't have good video cards for games. They would need to purchase a better one. Then they'd need controllers. And then games. And then possibley another hard drive because games take up so much space.. you see where this is going.

With consoles, you buy a single main piece of hardware, add extra controllers if needed, get the games and you're good to go. No virus worries (that I know of as of yet) on consoles or the whole "computers are unfriendly" stigma that still exists.


For my part...eh...they'll be prying my PC from my DEAD COLD ARMS before I let any console maker replace my beloved gray box. Unless we see a huge user base of programs or the ability to run Windows/DOS stuff, I don't see how a PS3 (or any console) will be replacing that - same for other makers of OSes, incidentally.

Well, I'm not saying consoles 'should' or 'will' replace PC gaming. I'm just saying that for the 11-16 market, consoles have always thrived better than PCs. And now that consoles are getting as powerful for gaming as a top of the line PC with a $300 added on video card, the market for PC gaming may drop in the upcoming years, except for perhaps online gaming, and the true dedicated PC gamer.