Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Console Games Sales Beat Out PC 502

Posted by michael from the linux-users-not-buying-games dept.
ttol writes "In the Star Tribune, they write that "PC games fell 6.2 percent through the first 10 months of this year, making the first such decline ever." They go on to say that consoles will break record sales this year, and that there is a shift towards console gaming from PC. Is this due to the fact that there are now three major contenders (XBox, Playstation 2, Game Cube) and all the advanced features they offer (DVD ability on the first two etc)? I, for one, will continue with my Battlefield 1942 on my PC."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Console Games Sales Beat Out PC More

Console Games Sales Beat Out PC

Comments Filter:

  • I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Perhaps everyone's just switching to Linux and playing games on their console?

    • Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Masa ( 74401 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:09AM (#4891158) Journal
      Perhaps everyone's just switching to Linux and playing games on their console?

      I did just that. I dot tired of fighting with Windows and video card drivers. After having serious problems with GTA2 and Unreal (I had to downgrade GFX drivers to be able to play GTA2 and then updgade the drivers to be able to run Unreal) I decided to start searching an alternative to my crappy PC hardware. I ended up buying PS2 and installing Linux to my PC. I've been very happy computer user ever since.

      • Re:I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

        by FrostedWheat ( 172733 )
        I did just that. I dot tired of fighting with Windows and video card drivers.

        Amen!

        I've done this myself.

        Do you find yourself using the console or the computer more now? When I had a lot more games on my machine I found I played more games than I do with the console. Maybe that's just me!

        • Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Masa ( 74401 )
          Do you find yourself using the console or the computer more now?

          I'm using my computer now as much as I used it before. But I'm playing more games with the console than I've used to play with the computer. The console has made playing games so much easier that it encourages me to play more. And at the same time, NOT playing with my computer gives me more time to do useful things with it and not to fight with driver dependencies. A win-win situation, I would say.

    • Actually, that's exactly what happened in my case. I even got my old Athlon650 with a Win98-install, but I don't even boot it anymore because it's just too much hassle. (And it can't run the newest games anyway and I won't reboot my main machine)

  • Well, DUH! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MonTemplar ( 174120 ) <slashdot@alanralph.fastmail.uk> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:04AM (#4891147) Journal
    Given that a console costs a fair bit less than even the most basic PC, and is lot easier to look after (no BSOD or GPF on a console - yet), this should be filed under 'no-brainer'...

    • Re:Well, DUH! (Score:4, Funny)

      by yobbo ( 324595 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:16AM (#4891170)
      You have never walked past an XBox display in the Mall, have you =)

      • Re:Well, DUH! (Score:4, Funny)

        by MonTemplar ( 174120 ) <slashdot@alanralph.fastmail.uk> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:38AM (#4891326) Journal
        You have never walked past an XBox display in the Mall, have you =)

        I have. Maybe they're only shipping over QA'd XBoxen over to Europe, and selling all the others to you guys Stateside. :)

        MT.

      • Re:Well, DUH! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @10:55AM (#4891631) Homepage
        I've never seen a XBox anywhere with a Blue Screen of Death. In fact, I'm not sure it can blue screen. It does have a green error screen normally realted to disc errors, though.

        I've seen PS2s and GCs do the same thing. I've bought PC games that were scratched out of the box and failed to install, too. I've also seen PCs, PSOnes, Dreamcasts, and even DVD players overheat.

        Your statement, while funny, is really just FUD. The XBox isn't any more crash-prone than any of the other consoles. It's certainly less crash prone than any computer system being used for games, and that includes both Linux and Mac systems. (Mac fanatics, yes, I've seen your precious Macs crash.)

    • Re:Well, DUH! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tigress ( 48157 )
      I agree. However, there's also the fact that console games cost a lot more than PC games. I personally would rather buy a game for my PC instead of buying the same game for my PS2, at a 50% higher price.

      It all depends on the game though, I usually enjoy playing the kind of games that require a mouse. Other kinds of games will not do with a mouse at all, and those I'd rather play on the console.

      Not having read the article, I assume that the sales are counted in dollars and not in units sold, which makes it even more likely that console games (more dollars per unit) will sell better than PC games. =)

      • Re:Well, DUH! (Score:5, Funny)

        by cicatrix1 ( 123440 ) <cicatrix1&gmail,com> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:26AM (#4891192) Homepage
        Uh, you're wrong. New console games and new PC games almost always cost $50 on the nose. If anything, PC games are breaking the trend and getting more expensive, especially if you go for the fancy "Collectors Edition" so you get a shiny box and an arm patch or something.

        • Re:Well, DUH! (Score:5, Informative)

          by tigress ( 48157 ) <rot13.fcnzgenc03@8in.net> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:35AM (#4891215)
          FIFA 2003, PC: $39.99, PS2/XBOX/GC: $49.99.

          Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, PC: $29.99, PS2/XBOX/GC: $49.99.

          The Two Towers, PC $29.99, PS2/XBOX/GC: $49.99

          Though, I'm quite sure you're right about PC games getting more expensive. On the other hand, PC games don't have to pay license fees to Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo.
          • If PC games are cheaper, does it make sense to put Windows on your XBox? Do the Xbox versions of games run noticeably better than the PC versions on the Xbox hardware?

            (Not to mention using Linux and WineX... but the compatibility wouldn't be so good.)
            • good luck running non-stripped down version of windows on 64mbytes of mem.(oh yeah, and running new pc games on xbox's cpu/gpu)

      • Re:Well, DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wheany ( 460585 )
        I personally would rather buy a game for my PC instead of buying the same game for my PS2, at a 50% higher price.

        And how many more console games can you afford to buy with the difference in prices between a gaming computer + operating system and a console?

    • Re:Well, DUH! (Score:5, Informative)

      by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @10:18AM (#4891526) Homepage
      Given that a console costs a fair bit less than even the most basic PC, and is lot easier to look after (no BSOD or GPF on a console - yet)...

      The PS2 and 'cube have no hard drive to let games mess with other games, but that's not the case for the xbox. The lord of the rings title was shipped with a game-freezing bug [gamespot.com].

      Here's my favorite part:
      Microsoft's solution to the Xbox cinematic bug is to have users remove The Lord of the Rings from the hard drive, install three other games, and then reinstall The Lord of the Rings.


      No word yet on whether Microsoft will send free games to new Xbox owners with less than three other games.

  • ease of use (Score:2, Insightful)

    by daisychain ( 69392 )
    Console gaming is more consistant, easier to "get in the game" and now online.

  • Its all about ease (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EGSonikku ( 519478 ) <petersen DOT mobile AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:07AM (#4891152)
    A console (depending on which) will run you $150 - $200. 1/2 the price of the hottest PC video cards alone. There is no installing, no tweaking, put in the game and go. You simply cannot beat a console for ease of use. Not to say anything is wrong with PC gaming but Mom and Dad arent going to buy thier kid a $2000 PC when they can pick up a GameCube with Metroid for under $200, and it still looks *damned* good. When all ya need to worry about is 640*480 and identical hardware, life is much easier on the developer as well.

    • Re:Its all about ease (Score:5, Informative)

      by silvaran ( 214334 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:40AM (#4891224)
      all ya need to worry about is 640*480 and identical hardware

      Some TVs have 1080i (high-resolution). Others support widescreen (available on some games). Some games are available on multiple platforms. You have to get it right the first time, because you can't release patches later. If your game pushes too many polygons, you can't simply increase the minimum requirements. There is a plethora of input devices and such available on the market for each console. You can't develop games on the same hardware that they run on. There are various display formats available depending on your region (NTSC, PAL, etc).

      So yeah, there's a little more to worry about than just 640x480 and assuming everyone's running an identical setup.
    • To get to my games collection I had to take my PS2 to pieces and solder a daughterboard to it!

      I had to fiddle with the XBox just so I could read the DVD data across the LAN

      these processes are not so simple ;)

    • Yes but overlooking soemthing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:46AM (#4891342)
      My first game was U5. On a PC. Soon after I started learning programming. For me it did *go* hand in hand. be creative and play.

      If people by only console to their kids it will remain just that : A toy. PC have the enorm advantage that you can use them for some, anything, else.

      My bet ? My generation had a lot of kido starting learning programming on PC. The next won't, Console will be widespread, and thus less and less kids will go for the IT industry.

      And console don't make a kid/teen/young adult get acquinted to technology per see, as using a MW oven don't make you acquinted with Electromagnetic physic. Our Kids will be as "technology analphabete" as our aprents...
      • My bet ? My generation had a lot of kido starting learning programming on PC. The next won't, Console will be widespread, and thus less and less kids will go for the IT industry.
        What did you learn programming in?

        In general, PCs are a lot less programmer friendly than the 8-bits and Amiga/ST type machines that proceeded them. I think the loss of computers that boot into BASIC will lead to far fewer kids picking up programming for fun.

        On the other hand, there is the ability to publish on the web, which is a form of contact the children of the 80s never had. These kids are wired as all get out.

        • boot into BASIC (Score:3, Interesting)

          by yerricde ( 125198 )

          I think the loss of computers that boot into BASIC

          Line-numbered BASIC? Ecch. The overuse of GOTO constructs in programs for old 8-bit BASIC interpreters has been known to stunt the growth of a sense of structure in some programmers who started out on such a system. Luckily for me, I used Logo (Lisp without the parentheses and with a plotting library) before BASIC.

          will lead to far fewer kids picking up programming for fun.

          What about computers that boot into a terminal and have perl and gcc available?

      • So what if every kid isn't a techie? There's more to life than tech. The geeky kids will continue to delve into computers. Now, those who don't want to won't have to. By the looks of your post, you probably should spend a bit more times with books and less with a computer, yourself. I can tell from your post that you can just barely read & write correctly.
  • It is dead obvious why this is happening. PC games debut at some ridiculously high price, before tanking down to 20 bucks or lower. No one wants to pay the high price, and most people wait until it is cheap(er). The price of new console games on the other hand is artificially inflated over the life of the game. Retailers risk the wrath of Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft if they dump the price too low. Everything else in the story is mostly anecdotal.

  • Indeed -- Consoles! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iteratix ( 534157 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:10AM (#4891160)
    Yeah... I don't know about any of you, but it really, really has been my experience that games on the consoles are far mor polished than their PC bretheren. For instance, Metroid Prime -- it really is a polished game. If any PC game manufacturers are listening, I look at this polish and completeness the first time I boot a game up. It is a nice feeling when Retro Studios/Nintendo think about almost every possible thing and implement it in the case of Metroid Prime. In contrast, take Unreal Tournament 2003 -- I found it rather ... blah, for a lack of a better word. I found UT's original interface far more original and understandable. The original's gameplay was also simpler and somehow more fun. Anyway, my point is, I feel that console games on the whole go through the wringer far longer than PC games do (granted they are a closed platform and suffer less variability in hardware).

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:10AM (#4891161)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • it's always been easy to pirate games. in fact, rampant PC game piracy has been on the table for as long as commercial games have been available. in the early 90's, groups like the SPA spread propaganda like wildfire. only difference is, nobody listened to them.

      so, please don't make this more than it is. an industry blames declining sales on real, solid market factors, and you want to blame it on such a nebulous factor like piracy?
      • I guess its very hard to argue that piracy affects sales when piracy on a platform has always been around. I remember tape to tape copiers were a godsend when I was about 12.

        Come to think of it, reducing piracy by switching to CD didn't seem to have much of an impact on sales either before or after burners became affordable.

        • Re:I don't work for the RIAA or the MPAA (Score:5, Funny)

          by Bert Peers ( 120166 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:21AM (#4891294) Homepage
          Tape to tape copiers ?? Back in the ZX Spectrum days, there was a pirate radiostation that would play tapes with software on the air ! So every week you'd have a few thousand geeks ready with their tape recorder hooked up to their FM receiver to "warez" the latest rally game or whatever. Try beating that for bandwidth :)


          I don't think it was totally legal though :]

  • its the masses (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by tokaok ( 623635 )
    personally i believe its because console have been more in the public eye as a valid way to spend your entertainment time. the masses tend to like simple direct appliances. hence you get tivo lovers and the linux crew(me!) who make their own linux for that added customizability. pc gaming also tends to have a much more Addict/crazies(online game, EQ,QUake etc) view in the mass media play that attituede compared to its just a bit of fun on the console side(mario, EA sports games, GTA is an exception) so for mom and dad deciding its kinda easy, do i want an evercrack addict, or should i just keep the keys to the fammily car/gun locked up and buy a console //dad will alaso play porno manga dvds on his xbox //because he finds kazzaa too intimidating

  • Not very strange (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dockan ( 586591 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:14AM (#4891167) Homepage
    It's not very strange that sales are shifting more and more towards console games, many games are released several months earlier for consoles, and PC gamers have to wait. No wonder people who want to play the latest games buy the console version instead.
    • pc gamers dont always have to wait. nor do console owners. Usually a game seems to come out for the system best suited for it. You typically see FPS's and RTS's come out for the pc and then the console, while a game like The Thing, which is more suited to a controller comes out for the console first then PC.

  • pros and cons (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fuzuli ( 135489 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:21AM (#4891183)
    Well,
    it is certanly easy to use a console for gaming, no video card driver issues, no performance difference in multiplayer etc. And it's easy to take it with you, mobility does not cause performance penalties like in laptops. just take the thing and visit the next door geek.
    But if you're the RTS type person, or a great fan of MYST series like me, then the picture changes.. I still consider these type of games only for pc considering the gameplay style. Maybe the console users who are younger can get used to the controllers of those devices, but i feel it's hard for me, and i don't think you have a chance in a quake deathmatch with a joypad
    (by the way, can we use a mouse with these things ?)
    Anyway, like others say, price and ease of use of these consoles beats the PC , but i still believe game types also matters. Now if i only had a PS2 to test these theories..

  • My name is Gus Sarrola (Score:3, Funny)

    by grommet_tdi ( 584038 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:29AM (#4891198)
    and I'm a PC gamer...well, I used to be.

    http://drunkgamers.com/switch0001.shtml [drunkgamers.com]

  • the social gaming experience (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gregory S Patterson ( 567055 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:31AM (#4891204)
    Although I'll admit that cost, ease of use, and superiority of games are the main reasons for the trend (like most poeple are saying), I did notice another factor that hasn't been mentioned here or in the article. If you and some friends just want to sit down (in the same room) and play a multiplayer game, do you really have a choice? How many PC games do you know of that allow more than one player on a single system at once? The consoles have that market cornered. People like playing games against their friends, and they especially like it when they can do so just sitting next to eachother on the couch.

    Online multiplayer is really a different animal altogether. It will only supplement social console gaming, not replace it. Even once the consoles of the future are seemlessly online, the "controller #2" will still get a LOT of use.
    • That is a very, very good point. My friends and I are all (or were all) hardcore PC gamers. Clan Kapitol members, for those of you who know the top ranked clans in the world. Now, all we do is play Mortal Kombat 5. You can't play that with a keyboard and mouse. You can't play that without a group of half a dozen people. :)
  • The only platform worth developing for, if you write a computer game, is Microsoft Windows. The only API considered worth using is DirectX. I try to avoid running Windows if I can, and DirectX is a horrid, horrid API. Factor in irresponsible coding of drivers that lead to crashes, and irresponsible coding of the game itself (called the let's ship it now and release a patch syndrome), and you have a recipe for disaster. There are just too many variables to manage, too many things that can go wrong.

    Oh, and last I checked, PC's don't have Rez.

  • Multiplex vs. Arthouse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Toasty16 ( 586358 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:40AM (#4891223) Homepage
    Consoles have really become mainstream with the current generation. They provide enough processing power for developers to make believable worlds, and the graphics have improved enough that even nongamers are sucked in by the visuals. On a PSX, Metal gear Solid looked like a Saturday morning cartoon; MGS2 for PS2 looks like it was rendered by Pixar.

    The videogame industry is on the cusp of widespread acceptance. In a hardware generation or two consoles might be seen as being just as indispensable as a TV. On the other hand, PCs and PC games are only growing in complexity, and it seems that they will be relegated to the hardcore segment only. This is not necessarily a bad thing; developers can make the big bucks off a multi-console release, but can realize their pet projects for the "advanced" PC audience. Face it, you're not going to see Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" at the local multiplex because the mass appeal just isn't there. Likewise, most people won't find the PC game Arx Fatalis under their trees this Christmas for the same reason. That's not to say that their won't be megahits on PC anymore, just look at any Blizzard game. It's the same with movies; arthouse can cross over to mainstream: think "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."

    The videogame industry is going through some serious growing pains with the fracturing console market and the lower PC game sales, but it'll come out stronger and more focused at the end of it, and it will have mass appeal equivalent to the movie industry. IMHO ;-)

  • isnt it obvious? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by draed ( 444221 )
    let's see... with consoles, companies don't have to worry about piracy, and they get to develop for 1 hardware platform instead of the 1000's of different combinations of pc hardware. seems obvious to me, that eventually, most games will be developed for a console system.

  • Longevity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by igrek ( 127205 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:43AM (#4891232)
    In 1996, I bough the Nintendo 64 console and a PC (133 MHz or so).

    In 2002, I still play Nintendo 64. Guess where's my 133 MHz PC?

  • I work at a major software chain store. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Corbin Dallas ( 165835 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:47AM (#4891235) Homepage
    I'm keeping the name to myself because I don't want to get fired, but trust me.. we're a major national player.

    We support several platforms in our store... PS2, PS, X-Box, Game Cube, PC, GameBoy Advance/Color, N64, and Dreamcast. Our slowest moving platform out of them all is definatly the PC. The only PC stuff that moves are MMORPGs and The Sims. Sports titles on the PC are dead. We shrank our shelf-space for PC titles to make room for the other platforms. No one is buying PC hardware from us ( video cards, sound cards, network cards, joysticks ). None of it is moving this Christmas.

    Meanwhile, all the consoles are hopping. You see... everyone's tried of all the problems you get playing PC games: Graphics too slow, Windows full of bugs, hard drive full, downloading patches, need a frickin network for multiplayer, etc. It's bullshit.

    OR, you can shell out $200 and get a nice console w/ DVD functionality. Open tray, insert game, close tray, and that's it! You're off and playing. Games are no more expensive. They're bug-free compared to PC games. Want multiplayer? Buy a second gamepad.

    PC games are collecting social security... and picking out thier casket and plot. They're not DEAD, but they are dying fast.
  • When you start having even games and sequels derived from PC games coming out (at least at first) only on console, of course things are going to drop.

    FFX hasn't come out on PC, not sure it will (but hoping).
    Starcraft ghost, derived from Starcraft, is coming out on console

    I mean, come on people. If something is going to come out on, let's say, X-box, how hard can it be to port to PC? X-box is basically a mini almost-PC anyways, so I'm sure that it wouldn't be a huge chore.

    Of course, FFX is one PS2... but I still want it on PC. Too many gaming companies are jumping the console bandwagon and leaving loyal PC fans in the dust.

  • New Trend Is Simultaneous Releases (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Junkstyle ( 631165 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @07:56AM (#4891255)
    Anyone else notice the same game being made for gamecube, xbox, ps2, and pc? All being released simulatenously or very closs together? Well if this is the case then the PC is outgunned 3 systems to 1. Right now console's graphics power is beginning to be eclipsed by PC's power. PC games will peak up after Doom3 and games based off that engine and other "NextGen" engines come out.
    • The problem with games like Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2003 is the hardware requirements... unbelievably high demands for hardware, which translates to high costs. I want to play Doom 3 when it hits, but if I don't have the hardware to do so, the $50.00 I spend on the game is then exploded by the $350.00 I have to spend on a Radeon 9700Pro to get it to run.

  • NOT reasons (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:05AM (#4891268) Journal
    Is this due to the fact that there are now three major contenders (XBox, Playstation 2, Game Cube) and all the advanced features they offer

    Oooo, three major contendors. That's so very different from the last generation of consoles, when it was only Sony, Sega, and Nintendo...

    As for advanced features, there are some extremely cheap DVD players on the market that sell for little more than the consoles' DVD remotes.

    As for the reasons... consoles are cheap, they don't come with the endless hassles of PCs, and many more people run BSD/Linux/OS X and can no longer play Windows games on their computers.

    As for why the change is happening now, who knows? Perhaps recently a new demographic that prefers consoles has been pushed into the gaming market.

    • Re:NOT reasons (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:43AM (#4891334)
      many more people run BSD/Linux/OS X and can no longer play Windows games on their computers.

      Yes, many more people now run non-Windows OSes on their PCs - but I very much doubt that that increase would account for even a small fraction of the drop in sales of PC games.

      Most of the people who have switched to Linux/whatever are the sort of people who weren't playing PC games in the first place. If they were, they wouldn't have switched! Why would they switch to an OS that they can't do everything they want to with?

      Personally, I'd imagine that falling levels of quality is one of the main reasons for the drop in sales. When was the last time you bought even a new PC game that didn't already have a patch out, or almost ready? Not only that, but I read an issue of PC Gamer recently (first PC mag I've read in ages), and of the dozen or so games they reviewed, only one or two scored above about 60%. When you're shelling out £35 (UK) on a game, you want a good one.

      I think a lot of games companies need to sit down and think about letting the development teams finish their games, rather than getting them to market ASAP...
      • Most of the people who have switched to Linux/whatever are the sort of people who weren't playing PC games in the first place. If they were, they wouldn't have switched! Why would they switch to an OS that they can't do everything they want to with?

        Well, first of all the huge number of gaming discussions on slashdot is ample proof that you are completely wrong on this point.

        As for why... many people are smart enough to know that function comes before features. I'd be happy to switch from a crappy, slow, unstable system with dependencies that never work out, and programs that continually conflict with each other, where I could play my games, to a system that has none of those problems, althogh will not play games. In fact, that's exactly what I did.

        Some people will even keep an extra system around just so they can do nothing but play their games on it, while not having to worry about making it stable, secure, or work with the programs they need to use on a workstation. Others use Wine. And others, give up on their old games completely.

        If you are locked into an operating system only because it can play games, either you are a gamer, and do little real work on your computer besides gaming, or you are making a very big mistake in choosing an OS.

      • Actually, I'm a person that dropped Windows and games for Linux and the console. I use to have my main system as a windows system - I play Jedi Knight II, Half-life, Quake 3 and the such. I got bored of them. I now use my computer only for Internet and work - not a single game gets played.

        I do still play games though. I play them on a PSX (I prefer my games in two dimensions). I play RPGs when alone, have a long time rival of Super Street Fighter 3 Alpha with a friend (always play it when he's over) and load up the DDR pad or puzzle fighter when there is a group over.

        The PC just can't compete with the console when it comes to using a system just for REAL multiplayer fun. Real multiplayer meaning having a couple friends in the same room having a social time outside of the game itself.
  • It's just so much easier to play multiplayer games at someone's house that way.

    Yeah, you can play mutliplayer over networks and the internet, but it's just not the same as sitting down with some friends in the same room and playing a game. How many PC games can let you all sit down at the same system and play the same game at the same time? Not many.

    Yeah, there are more reasons for consoles doing well, but from what I can see, other people have brought them up.
  • The advantages of console are obvious: cheaper hardware, quick to boot (no need to deal with OS menu selection, icons, etc), easy to take with you.

    However, I will stick with a PC. Few of the reasons:
    * Power - you simply cannot get more power on a console. The new GeForce FX will come out and allow us PC users to boost the power of our games instantly. Combine this with nVidia's Cg when it becomes used more and the difference will be noticeable in old and new games alike
    * Control - I can do many things with games not possible on a consol (or not easily). Example - server, game stats, modding, program - customization. Consoles are made to work and not be touched.
    * Input devices - PC's have the mouse. Console pads can work on a PC too. But the mouse is simply the best input device for games like Quake, Halflife, etc. I could not use a console stick and still get as many frags. Even if you can get the mouse for the console, the games are designed with the gamepad in mind. PC games are designed with the mouse and keyboard in mind. Much more control.

    Let me know if I missed anything.

  • This actually suprises people? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zakabog ( 603757 ) <john.jmaug@com> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:13AM (#4891280)
    Umm if any of you noticed, very recently PCs have become very popular. The problem is that people wanted bargain PCs, so they rush out and buy some $500 E-Machine and expect it to run everything they throw at it, never run out of space, never break, and run insanely fast. Well, that never happens, the comptuer runs 40% of the stuff you install, crashes every day, runs out of space in a week on morpheus (and broadband) and runs slower than dirt, and dirt's pretty slow! In comes the console, each console has standard hardware, whenever you buy a PS2 it's going to be like every other PS2 ever created (well there's extra stuff you can buy but the games run the same), any game you buy for that console will work and you ALWAYS get a decent framerate.

    It also doesn't help that games have become way more advanced recently. I remember when I had a 50MHz 486 with 16 megs of ram (which was alot at the time), it wasn't fast, but it ran every game I installed on it (C&C Red Alert, Quake 2, Dark Forces, Journeyman Project, more that I can't remember). Now there are games like Doom 3 (which doesn't seem to work nicely on any hardware but it's just beta), B&W, UT 2003, all of them require a decent 3D card. Unfortunately the average computer today doesn't come with a decent 3D card, or in some cases enough RAM. So anyway, while alot of computers may have been bought recently, and alot of pretty good games have come out, people don't have the computers needed to run these games (or the money to buy one) so they get angry and go out to buy an xbox or a PS2 or whatever and 10 games for $700 (which is still cheaper than the PC required for most games to run smoothly.)

  • Re: PC Game Slump (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AliasMoze ( 623272 )
    People have mentioned Linux as a reason for PC game slumps? Are you serious? I would wager Linux's presence has no effect on PC game sales.

    Speaking for myself, I prefer PC games hands down over consoles. However, if I had to buy a gift for a family member who likes games, I'd get a console. Consoles are cheaper and easy-to-use, as has been pointed out. The steps needed to play a console game out of the box vs. the PC equivalent are ridiculously simpler.

    Plus, consoles are sitting-around-the-sofa-with-friends machines, wheras PC's are sitting-around-alone-in-your-underwear machines. Introducing the social element to a game (including sports) seems to always draw crowds. FPS's suck on console, but other genres are much better with a pad than with mouse and keyboard, like flight games, driving games, etc.

  • Consoles just aren't fun (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:35AM (#4891318) Homepage
    A few years ago I got a game called Creatures [creatures.co.uk]. Then Creatures 2 [creatures2.com] and Creatures 3 [creatures3.com]. Played the game itself like a maniac for a few months. Then while playing C2 one creature I wanted was going to die because of genetic defects. Not sure why but I spent a month writing a plugin for the game that could monitor the game and optionally inject creatures to prevent them from dying. I also wrote a program to read the game's image files and draw the creatures from the game. Currently it's being used to put images of them in web sites. And all this information I needed was on the official site.

    None of this would have been possible on a console of course. I've heard it's been ported to gameboy advance, but I never heard anybody talk about it much. It can't be the same thing. What I want in a game is first that it's good of course, and second that I can poke around when I get tired of the normal game.

    If anybody is feeling curious, the latest version is available for free here [creatures.net], and there's a Linux version.

  • PC vs. Console (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blankmange ( 571591 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:36AM (#4891319)
    The age-old battle. It is simple: it is so much easier to buy a PS2, hook it up to your living room television, drop in a game: that is it. At this point you are in the game and playing away.

    On the flip side, buy a computer (or components to make a PC), spend the afternoon (or day) putting it together, install OS, tweak OS, download drivers/bios updates, install game.... usually at this point there is a crash somewhere (BSOD or GPF), look for a patch to the game, look for the beta drivers that will let you play the game with your hardware.... and on and on and on.

    You get the picture. I have to admit to having built a monster PC, but still playing games on my PS2. Sure the hardware on the PC is more suited to playing games, but it just is not worth the hassle of trying to get the games to run. I stated this in a letter to the editor of Maximum PC and got ripped for it.... but it is true.

  • simple facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jacek Poplawski ( 223457 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @08:55AM (#4891355)
    Calculations, calculations and another "new economy". Everyone say "consoles are coming, PCs are dying". But what about simple facts:
    • on PC you can play games from 1980s to 2002 plus use emulator of almost every platform
    • on PC you can buy very cheap games from "classic packs" or cover CDs, classic games are for example Fallout, Unreal, Thief or Railroad Tycoon 2 - are these games really worse than current "hits" ?
    • on PC you can use a lot of freeware/shareware games, Free Software is also much closer to PC than consoles
    • last but not least - abandonware, or you can call it "piracy" if you want

    Of course if you want to buy something, turn it on and play few new games - console is probably better choice than PC. But which console give you so much possibilites (just in games!) as PC?

    • on PC you can play games from 1980s to 2002

      You can't play games from 1981 to 1995 on a computer that primarily boots to a Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional operating system or a Microsoft Windows XP operating system without emulation [sourceforge.net] or virtualization [vmware.com], because 1. NT operating systems have poor support for DOS apps, and 2. those DOS games that do work with NT may run too fast to be playable.

      on PC you can use a lot of freeware/shareware games, Free Software is also much closer to PC than consoles

      Same on GBA [gbadev.org]. Have you played Tetanus On Drugs [pineight.com] for GBA?

  • Convince me. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tequesta ( 442108 )
    OK. I've been thinking about buying a PS2 for a while. I'm really fed up with graphics and sound incompatibilities, the fact that game installations seem to grow in size much faster than hard drives do, etc. However, these are the kinds of games I like:
    • Adventures, such as Monkey Island or Runaway. This is my main focus.
    • Hide-and-seek strategy, such as Desperados, Robin Hood, Commandos.
    • Civilization-building strategy, such as Age of Empires, Anno 1503.
    • RPGs, such as the Baldur's Gate series.

    I don't care much for sports or racing. I also really like good graphics, and 3D simply is not up to par on that.

    From what I've seen so far, none of these kinds of games seem to exist on any console; partly because the TV resolution is really limited. So does that mean that I'm stuck with the PC forever? Or are there any games that fit this profile on any of the major consoles?

    I'd really like to switch. But right now, it looks like I can't.
  • You upgraded your PC because it both made games better *and* it improved game performance. Now you've got lots of people like me: my main work machine is a P2-350 with a GeForce MX (it's already been upgraded once). It is perfectly fine for all of the work, email and web browsing that I do. That'll change in a while I guess, but right now it's just fine - I have no desire whatsoever to upgrade it.

    So that leaves games as the sole reason to upgrade. To upgrade my PC to spec so that I can play most PC games these days I'll have to replace the motherboard, the CPU, the RAM, and the graphics card - that's almost everything that matters in a PC, quite costly! Or I can pass PC games by and buy brand new games for my 2-year old PlayStation, which will probably continue to serve well for some time to come.

    Of course the PC does have some advantages: advanced input methods and more power, so if some absolute killer game that needed the juice came out I'd do the upgrade. Total Annihilation 2 anyone? :)

    • d'oh - you upgraded because it improved both games *and* work performance. Open foot insert mouth...
    • Not to mention the fact that I can STILL play PS-1 games on my PS-2.

      I found Mechwarrior 3 when going through some boxes the other day and decided to install it on my Windows 2000 "gaming box", wouldn't even install. I got a dialog box telling me that I needed Windows 95 to play the game.

      PC's are notorious for not maintaing backwards compatibility. Kudos to Sony (It's the weekend right? We like them on the weekends.) for not abandoning a huge catalog of games.

  • Sticker Shock Gaming (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @09:18AM (#4891385) Homepage Journal
    I like consoles as much as the next guy and the XBox itself shows a lot of promise when it comes to mixing traditional PC and arcade titles, but sticker shock is starting to get to me. I don't know if it's irked anybody else, but $50 for each and every brand new game is getting a little tedious. $50 for each and every game no matter what it is. It's a very disturbing trend IMO. Halo? Ok, no probs. $50 well spent. Whacked? There is no freaking way that title is worth $50, Live or no Live support. But it was, for the sole fact that it was new. And it's like that every game. PC games aren't like that. Would Worms Aramageddon for the PC, a signifigantly better title, have rated that much at launch? Never. I never saw the price above $40.

    It's just a very disturbing trend in my eyes, one that brings home the fact and maks it super obvious that they're making all their money on the back end, not off hardware. It's enough to turn me into a late adopter and wait for the prices to hit more realistic levels, something I'm not used to. I mean, I realize early adoption comes at a price, but damn.

  • PC games lost my business years ago... (Score:3, Informative)

    by still_sick ( 585332 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @09:33AM (#4891404)
    And I didn't even own a console untill 2001!

    Probably about 6 years ago I was given a Matrox Mystique Video Card for christmas - the latest and greatest there was. It's magical stuff supported the three games that came with it (MechWarrior 2, and two others I can't remember), but nothing else that I could find / cared about.

    Within 6 months it was already too slow for the latest junk that didn't support it's special chipset (which was every new game, the standard never caught on).

    So I stopped playing games simply because I couldn't run them. Period.

    Then about three years ago I finally had a job, and bought the latest and greatest video card, top of the line ATI-All-in-Wonder-Rage-128-PRO. Supported almost everything, so I looked into some of the latest game, but within I think three months a new breed of games came out, and it was again too slow. I had the Rage chipset, they needed the Rage2 chipset for optimal performance. Little did I know that I bought the Rage chipset on the ass-end of its existence

    Thank God for consoles. I bought the PS2 summer of 2001 pretty much just for GT3, and it still runs just fine. No upgrades, no new chipset standards every few months.... Couldn't be happier. Games are fun again, and I never have to worry as to whether or not the hardware will drive the latest games.
  • Consoles have that social advantage that PC's just don't have... 2 to 4 people or more can play against each other on the same screen - on the sofa with their feet on the coffee table no less - and talk smack about each others mothers all night long. You can't do that on the PC.

    Even LAN parties seem dorkish and antisocial in comparison.
  • There's not really much of a "war" per say going on between PC games and consoles. It's like saying that there's a war going on between fans of rap music and fans of rock music, it's two different audiences that even sometimes listen to both. It's not like anyone is going to stop producing rock music because (ugh) rap is more popular. Usually when a game enjoys large amounts of success on one platform they bring it over to the other one (ie. Final Fantasy 7 and Tony Hawk to PC, Ghost Recon to consoles)

    PC games are geared towards a more intellegent, connected, hardcore gamer, focusing on genere's like RTSs, MMORPGs, and online shooters (many of which have adopted Counter-Strike's turn based system over "run and gun"). Could you picture Warcraft III having nearly as much success as it did on a PS2? America's Army? Ghost Recon? Neverwinter Nights? These games require a more mature, dedicated gamer, willing to invest large amounts of time into their video game addiction. Often times that is why the PC gaming experience is also so rewarding.

    You have console gamers: dropped $150 on a cool new console, picked up GTA: Vice City or Madden 2002, they want to chill out for a night, not invest hours into creating a cool new scenario, role play as a dungeon master, devise real life military tactics only to wait 10 minutes to shoot maybe 1 person, or have a 2 hour game of Warcraft. They want to see Tommy Vercetti use swear words and shoot people.

    It's a totally different market, geared towards different types gamers. The reason console games outsell PC games is simply because there's a lot more casual gamers out there. However, as long as there's always intellegent gamers out there, there will always be a market for intellegent games.
  • ... is that the PC market has not seen a Big, Bad and Ugly Game for years. PC market is very specific and sensible to certain specific games that demand a lot more than one can afford. Remember Doom? Remember the Quake series? Back when they came up, no console could ever hold up such beasts. And most PCs were quickly upgraded to fit the current game. The PC market highly depends on such bleeding edge games to live. Besides, these are games that frequently give birth to tweaks, features, hacks and lots of art. Doom is unbeatable till now by the number of ports, maps and features. Quake was the base for several popular games like Half-life series. Quake2 nearly reached the feat of becoming a basis for virtual worlds. Unfortunately, the market went down on Quake3 and Wolfenstein... They were not so breathtaking like their predecessors.

    The only way to see the PC market reviving is to see another tide like those seen on Doom and Quake2 times. Something that is so wild and bleeding-edge, that people will forget for months what a console is, and return to frenzy upgrades and hacks. Frankly I have doubt that Doom3 would fit on such thing. But who knows?..
  • One problem is that we have exactly had a flood of games that just make you go "Hot Damn Jim!" Yeah there have been some GREAT games this year, Neverwinter Nights, UT2003, so on so forth. Add to that the mentioned issue of there being 3 consoles. Then, there is everyone's fear of an economy that isn't doing great but isn't dying and slipping into a depression as you would think to listen to the news. Plus, PC hardware is kind of uncertain right now, what to buy as far as the best I mean. There are alot of factors playing into this.

    • Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Twister002 ( 537605 )
      There are more console games that are making me say "Hot Damn Jim!" than there are PC games.

      Oh boy, UT2003. Wow plays just like UT except with prettier eye candy and it costs $40 more.

      Now, Mechassault on the XBox! Cool, a mech game that looks better than the latest Mech game released for the PC. "Steel Batallions", what's that? I need a special $150 controlloer for it that includes foot controls and a eject button? That's cool! Exepensive but cool!

      Let me get this straight, if I beat the GameBoy Advance version of Metroid Fusion, I can link it to the GameCube version of Metroid Prime and get another power suit to play with? Cool!
  • ...because pretty much everybody I know (at least below 50) has got a PC of sorts. But I also know quite a few that want to "free up" the PC so they get a console for the kids to use with the TV instead. Or if they're the right kind, so that they can play games while the kids use the PC ;->. Not to mention people with a PC that still really really want a console only game.

    What still doesn't go over well with me is the 640x480 resolution, it doesn't sound bad but I sure like running unreal in 1280x960. Now, if there were HDTVs, HDTV consoles and HDTV games, that would be a different story. But there aren't. And if there were, they'd probably be priced like a PC or more anyway.

    Kjella

  • In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tim Browse ( 9263 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @10:09AM (#4891490)

    ...Mars bars are more popular than Ginseng, and Microsoft have decided to start charging for software.

    I'm confused - the article and many comments here seem to give the impression that the PC was king of the block, but this report shows that it's now starting to lose.

    The PC has been losing to consoles for a long time. I'm talking years and years. Console game sales have beaten the hell out of PC games for a long time. Some of the most successful console games sell millions of copies - Games like Donkey Kong Country etc sold in excess of 5 million units world wide. A million selling console game is doing pretty well - a million selling PC game is extremely rare. Super Mario Bros 3 sold over 7 million copies in the US alone. Nintendo sole about 9 million copies of Mario 64, 7 million copies of GoldenEye, and about 6 million copies of Zelda 64. I can't think of many/any PC games that approach those sales levels. And remember those are N64 games, and the N64 did not do nearly as well as the Playstation. I remember reading that a million copies of Starcraft (for PC) had been sold in Korea alone, and that was a stunning figure for anyone involved in PC game development/distribution.

    As for advertising, I've always thought that adverts for console games have always been much more dominant than those for PC, especially on TV/at the cinema - but maybe this is specific to the UK?

    In short, what's the fuss? Console games have always been more profitable/better selling, and it's not like it's news. PC game sales have been declining significantly for at least two years - that's certainly the message developers get from publishers, who are increasingly looking for PS2 games above anything else.

    2p.

    Tim

    • Although, in reply to myself :-), I will just say that 'The Sims' does seem to one PC game that bucks the trend. In a store the other day I counted 6 (six) add-on packs for The Sims - and those are unique add-ons - I'm not counting the bundles of two packs in one box, or special editions of The Sims including one or more add on packs, etc.

      They've got to be shifting a lot of copies of that game.

      Tim

  • Reverse trend and other things (Score:4, Insightful)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @10:37AM (#4891580) Journal
    I think the single most important reason why console game do well is exactly the single most important reason why cellphones do well: They are easy to use. Switch it on, press a couple of buttons and off you go. No matter how much easier computers have become they are still very difficult to use when compared to gadgets.

    I think both microsoft and sony will attempt to make their consoles more and more capable in that they will go online, do surfing, mail, messaging etc without the user having to wait eons for the programme to load. They might even start integrating stuff like office (XBOX version) eventually. If it still works like a gadget people will use it and like it.

    Another factor in gaming is that there are extremely few really innovative games. Most follow well known genres because the publishers are afraid of taking risks.

  • Well, I work in a major UK Game store and... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well, I work in a Major UK Game store and I've worked there on and off for 3 years during my time at university and I've been apalled to see many good PC games get cancelled and dragged over to Consoles, I'd agree with one of the poster's comments about the ability to tinker with games and program on PCs which is lost with consoles.

    Examples of Games that have been lost to consoles (or delayed because of them):
    • Halo - Potentially a great game, prevented from being released on PC by Micro$oft because they want something to make their crappy brick (sorry, console) look good.
    • GTA3: Vice City - Brilliant Next chapter in the GTA3 series, now won't be released any time soon just to keep sony happy and keep sales of PS2 going.
    • Colin McRae Rally 3 - Great looking rally game, not being released on PC any time soon because they want to capitalise on console sales.

    I do see a trend with people coming in the shop and buying games though, it is definately the more intellegent people buying PC games in general, as a result the market has tried to capitalise on this by releasing 'intellegent' (read sometimes boring) games for the PC, whereas your typical console owner goes for violence or motorsport, generally Wrestling or Driving games.

    Manufacturers also alter games on different platforms, for example the new James Bond game, Nightfire was a multiplatform release, except the PC version misses out all the Driving levels, I happen to like driving games on the PC!

    It isn't helped by the publishers and stores as well, they get far higher profit from a Console game (another £10-14) than they do from a PC game.

    Manufacturers like the Console because it is an easily controllable market, once people have made an investment in the hardware everyone has to pay their prices for games, or they can't play it, there are barriers to entry into the console market, with expensive development kits being needed from Sony/Nintendo/Micro$oft before they are able to get started preventing easy, cheap game production.

    Whenever people come into the store after a particular game and it's available on the PC I always try and sell the PC version because it's cheaper and for the mostpart better (better graphics, sound etc.) and if people definately want a console I try and steer them away from the XBOX (microsoft has made too much money and monopolised too many markets already!)

    Also, Games Prices - People over in the US may complain about $29.99 per game, try £29.99, which is equal to around $44.98! (taking £1 = $1.50, I don't know the exact exchange rate) When are companies going to stop ripping the UK off!

    Well, that's my general rant about the state of the UK games market over with.

    The Honus should be on the OS manufacturers to make fairly consistent hardware (like macs) that could be garaunteed, then the game could just be booted from CD without worrying about the OS getting in the way (much like the XBOX does with embedded Win2k on each game)

    Also, if you get offered a reward card in store and don't want to pay £2, I agree you shouldn't have to, but we get B**locked if we don't try and sell them, so please don't complain to us. Write an email to the head office and complain, also I wouldn't have one if I didn't work there, I don't like giving away marketing info to the company either, but seeing as they log employee sales anyway, I may as well have some points.
  • I prefer to play games on my PC rather than my Xbox or PS2. The reason being that the graphics are usually better and I like the keyboard/mouse combo. My real sticking point is that despite current sound cards being able to dump a Dolby Digital 5.1 stream and interpret a DD5.1 stream from a DVD. Most sound cards cannot encode DTS or DD5.1 in REAL TIME. I have to rely on 4 discrete analog channels instead of 6 positional speakers. When will Creative Labs get their act together?

  • My take on the factors (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkiddNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday December 15, 2002 @12:38PM (#4892043) Homepage
    1. The two "new" consoles have been out a year now, and now have more than one game worth buying (especially GameCube), so it makes sense that they would be selling. There's only so much holiday buying money to go around, so the fact that the PC is down by only 6% is surprising.
    2. One of the things that PC's do well is Internet Multiplayer. All three consoles require you to purchase something (even Xbox which had it "built in" already) to get online. When you can play a game online, you'll play it more.
    3. For that matter, the PC has the MMORPG, something the consoles have only flirted with so far. Pehaps EverQuest isn't moving as many boxes as they used to but the 200,000 people paying $12.99 per month to play mean that the game is still making money. For that matter, when you have a game like an MMORPG that requires a large time investment and a monthly bill, you're less likely to go out and buy more games (which is why I don't touch 'em).
    4. PC games can be modified and extended. Check out Neverwinter Nights which you can pretty much play forever, especially online. Plus there's all the FPS modifications.
    5. By that logic, NWN debuted with a $60 price tag - makes sense, given the replay value. PC games are sometimes more expensive, which is hurting their sales.
    6. True, it's possible to pirate console games, but it's uncommon. Few if any fool with mod chips or have DVD burners (Joe Public, not Joe Slashot). PC game piracy is much more common.
    7. Finally, consoles don't need intelligence. Anyone can pop in a disc and fire up a game. PC games require installation, fiddling, and while people like me love this, Joe Public hates it.
    Now I just got a GameCube and Metroid Prime, so I can swing both ways on this issue, but I do prefer PC games. However, console games will always have the apple of the public's eye.

  • Where's the blockbuster release PC games for 2002? (Score:3, Informative)

    by leonbev ( 111395 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @01:35PM (#4892273) Journal
    I know that I bought less games in 2002, because most of the major releases that I want to buy haven't been shipped yet. I'd love go out to the store and buy Rainbow Six 3, Simcity 4, and Doom 3 right now, but they're not going to be shipped until 2003.

    That, plus the lack of any absolute "must buy" games being released this year, has cut down on my number of game purchases. Sure, Unreal Tournament 2003 and No One Lives Forever 2 were good, but they certainly weren't as ground-breaking as the original releases of those games.

  • Obvious reasons (Score:4, Insightful)

    by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Sunday December 15, 2002 @02:45PM (#4892662)
    1- Consoles do not run Windows, and are therefore much more stable.
    2- A console does not need a $350+ video card upgrade every 12 months to run the current batch of games.
    3- Console games are not regularly released in a beta state by broke game companies that need sales to finish the code and release a giant patch.
    4- The more time we spend parked 12" away from a monitor at work, the more we value gaming ten feet away on the La-Z-Boy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close