http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ft-no-new-xbox

Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
a new console from anybody anytime soon. After some of the down sales
months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.

Relevant quotes:

""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."

"The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
we're at the midpoint yet."

And a complete laugher:

"but we believe we have a high quality console"

MS should stop developing D3D for a couple years then since they're going be
holding the industry back with a DX9 console.

Trevor Smithson wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ft-no-new-xbox
>
> Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
> a new console from anybody anytime soon. After some of the down sales
> months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
> later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.
>
> Relevant quotes:
>
> ""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
> the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."
>
> "The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
> we're at the midpoint yet."
>
> And a complete laugher:
>
> "but we believe we have a high quality console"


"I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of the
long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console, because
we're able to give this console new life either with software upgrades
or hardware upgrades like Project Natal,"

MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I do
wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
when the time is right.

On Jan 11, 11:50 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Trevor Smithson wrote:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...icrosoft-no-ne...
>
> > Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
> > a new console from anybody anytime soon.  After some of the down sales
> > months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
> > later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.
>
> > Relevant quotes:
>
> > ""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
> > the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."
>
> > "The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
> > we're at the midpoint yet."
>
> > And a complete laugher:
>
> > "but we believe we have a high quality console"
>
> "I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of the
> long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console, because
> we're able to give this console new life either with software upgrades
> or hardware upgrades like Project Natal,"
>
> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they.  I
> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span.  I do
> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow.   Don't get
> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> the tooth now.  I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
display that half of us can't see anyway? I feel like they are still
making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
incremental. Long in the tooth compared to what? PC games? PC games
are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.

I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
happening at the moment.

The King of Gaming wrote:

>> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
>> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
>> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I do
>> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
>> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
>> the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
>> when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> display that half of us can't see anyway?

HD only effects the screen resolution. Screen resolution is only one
factor in graphical quality.

> I feel like they are still
> making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> incremental. Long in the tooth compared to what? PC games? PC games
> are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.

PC game's aren't as profitable as console games but they are far from
dead. For one thing the PC games market is far more diverse and
consoles simply don't have the input hardware to make them viable.
Another factor is joint developed games. Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2,
Arkam Asylum ect. These games look *far* better and generally play
better on a PC.

> I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> happening at the moment.

I'd say they are. Even very pretty games like Assassins Creed 2 have a
lot of very dodgy looking low resolution textures.

On Jan 11, 12:07 am, Trevor Smithson <trevor_smith...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...icrosoft-no-ne...
>
> Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
> a new console from anybody anytime soon.  After some of the down sales
> months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
> later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.
>
> Relevant quotes:
>
> ""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
> the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."
>
> "The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
> we're at the midpoint yet."
>
> And a complete laugher:
>
> "but we believe we have a high quality console"

Horrible, horrible news. The Natal technology is not going to be
anywhere near good enough to be a replacement for a new generation of
hardware. Microsoft thinks they're going to leverage the whole Wii
phenomenon but really they're just going to end up producing a niche
device that most people won't bother with.

Hopefully, the imminent failure of Natal will open their eyes as to
what they need to do within the next 2-3 years.

On Jan 11, 12:50 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Trevor Smithson wrote:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...icrosoft-no-ne...
>
> > Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
> > a new console from anybody anytime soon.  After some of the down sales
> > months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
> > later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.
>
> > Relevant quotes:
>
> > ""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
> > the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."
>
> > "The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
> > we're at the midpoint yet."
>
> > And a complete laugher:
>
> > "but we believe we have a high quality console"
>
> "I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of the
> long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console, because
> we're able to give this console new life either with software upgrades
> or hardware upgrades like Project Natal,"
>
> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they.  I
> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span.  I do
> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow.   Don't get
> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> the tooth now.  I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> when the time is right.

Good to know there's *SOMEONE* else here with some good sense.

;-)

On Jan 11, 1:47 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:50 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Trevor Smithson wrote:
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...icrosoft-no-ne....
>
> > > Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
> > > a new console from anybody anytime soon.  After some of the down sales
> > > months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
> > > later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.
>
> > > Relevant quotes:
>
> > > ""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
> > > the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."
>
> > > "The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
> > > we're at the midpoint yet."
>
> > > And a complete laugher:
>
> > > "but we believe we have a high quality console"
>
> > "I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of the
> > long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console, because
> > we're able to give this console new life either with software upgrades
> > or hardware upgrades like Project Natal,"
>
> > MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they.  I
> > can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> > not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span.  Ido
> > wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow.   Don't get
> > me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> > the tooth now.  I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> > when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> display that half of us can't see anyway?

Graphical improvements don't *have* to come in the form of resolution
increases. Plus, the inclusion of composite cables right now is more a
cost-cutting factor than anything else. HDTV is at about 70%
penetration in the U.S. now.

> I feel like they are still
> making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> incremental.  Long in the tooth compared to what?  PC games?  PC games
> are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.
>
> I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> happening at the moment.

It'll be interesting to see how Mass Effect 2 is. The quality of the
graphics seems to have jumped quite a bit but who knows how well the
hardware will be able to handle it? I'm just as interested in God of
War 3.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:

>> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
>> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
>> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I do
>> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
>> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
>> the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
>> when the time is right.
>
> Good to know there's *SOMEONE* else here with some good sense.

I don't see why some people seem so reluctant to acknowledge even the
possibility that this generation is getting well past it's prime. Hell,
assuming Moore's Law still hold true then it's a scientific fact.

On Jan 11, 1:20 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The King of Gaming wrote:
>
> >> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they.  I
> >> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> >> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span.  I do
> >> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow.   Don't get
> >> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> >> the tooth now.  I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> >> when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> > this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> > what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> > display that half of us can't see anyway?
>
> HD only effects the screen resolution.  Screen resolution is only one
> factor in graphical quality.

It's by far the biggest factor, to the point where there's nothing
else even worth mentioning. Most of the graphic shortcomings we have
today are a result of trying to run games at higher resolutions.

>
> > I feel like they are still
> > making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> > incremental.  Long in the tooth compared to what?  PC games?  PC games
> > are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.
>
> PC game's aren't as profitable as console games but they are far from
> dead.  For one thing the PC games market is far more diverse and
> consoles simply don't have the input hardware to make them viable.
> Another factor is joint developed games.  Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2,
> Arkam Asylum ect. These games look *far* better and generally play
> better on a PC.

PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years. No
important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
their head. If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures. That's
hardly what I'd call life. Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
the front page? Dead.

>
> > I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> > current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> > happening at the moment.
>
> I'd say they are. Even very pretty games like Assassins Creed 2 have a
> lot of very dodgy looking low resolution textures.

You may very well be right, but it's only year 4 for the 360 and year
3 for the PS3. Traditionally, we've still seen some growth in those
years.

On Jan 11, 1:25 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:47 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 11:50 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Trevor Smithson wrote:
> > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...icrosoft-no-ne...
>
> > > > Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
> > > > a new console from anybody anytime soon.  After some of the down sales
> > > > months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
> > > > later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.
>
> > > > Relevant quotes:
>
> > > > ""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
> > > > the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."
>
> > > > "The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
> > > > we're at the midpoint yet."
>
> > > > And a complete laugher:
>
> > > > "but we believe we have a high quality console"
>
> > > "I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of the
> > > long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console, because
> > > we're able to give this console new life either with software upgrades
> > > or hardware upgrades like Project Natal,"
>
> > > MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
> > > can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> > > not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span.  I do
> > > wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow.   Don't get
> > > me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> > > the tooth now.  I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a newPC
> > > when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> > this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> > what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> > display that half of us can't see anyway?
>
> Graphical improvements don't *have* to come in the form of resolution
> increases. Plus, the inclusion of composite cables right now is more a
> cost-cutting factor than anything else. HDTV is at about 70%
> penetration in the U.S. now.
>
> > I feel like they are still
> > making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> > incremental.  Long in the tooth compared to what?  PC games?  PC games
> > are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.
>
> > I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> > current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> > happening at the moment.
>
> It'll be interesting to see how Mass Effect 2 is. The quality of the
> graphics seems to have jumped quite a bit but who knows how well the
> hardware will be able to handle it? I'm just as interested in God of
> War 3.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

God of War 3 may very well be a Groundhog's day for this generation
(since the first two were such technology milestones on the PS2). If
this game doesn't differentiate itself from the pack, it will be
telling for how much life is left in the PS3...

The King of Gaming wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:20 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> The King of Gaming wrote:
>>
>>>> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
>>>> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
>>>> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I do
>>>> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
>>>> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
>>>> the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
>>>> when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
>>> this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
>>> what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
>>> display that half of us can't see anyway?
>> HD only effects the screen resolution. Screen resolution is only one
>> factor in graphical quality.
>
> It's by far the biggest factor, to the point where there's nothing
> else even worth mentioning. Most of the graphic shortcomings we have
> today are a result of trying to run games at higher resolutions.

I'm sorry but that statement isn't true at all. Texture resolution, mesh
complexity, pixel shaders, texture smoothing, anisotropic filtering,
anti aliasing, complex shadows, lighting effects, bump mapping. That's
juts off the top of my head.

>>> I feel like they are still
>>> making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
>>> incremental. Long in the tooth compared to what? PC games? PC games
>>> are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.
>> PC game's aren't as profitable as console games but they are far from
>> dead. For one thing the PC games market is far more diverse and
>> consoles simply don't have the input hardware to make them viable.
>> Another factor is joint developed games. Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2,
>> Arkam Asylum ect. These games look *far* better and generally play
>> better on a PC.
>
> PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years. No
> important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
> their head.

Define an "important" game.

> If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
> will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures. That's
> hardly what I'd call life. Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
> used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
> the front page? Dead.

As I said, not as profitable but not dead at all. The PC games market is
more diverse and mult-platform games are for the most part massively
superior on the PC.

As for your comment about EBGames.com a quick look shows 3 out of the 6
games on the main page are PC releases. One of the 6 is a Wii exclusive.

>>> I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
>>> current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
>>> happening at the moment.
>> I'd say they are. Even very pretty games like Assassins Creed 2 have a
>> lot of very dodgy looking low resolution textures.
>
> You may very well be right, but it's only year 4 for the 360 and year
> 3 for the PS3. Traditionally, we've still seen some growth in those
> years.

4 year old technology is very out of date. This is scientific fact.

On Jan 11, 12:47 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:50 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Trevor Smithson wrote:
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...icrosoft-no-ne....
>
> > > Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
> > > a new console from anybody anytime soon.  After some of the down sales
> > > months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
> > > later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.
>
> > > Relevant quotes:
>
> > > ""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
> > > the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."
>
> > > "The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
> > > we're at the midpoint yet."
>
> > > And a complete laugher:
>
> > > "but we believe we have a high quality console"
>
> > "I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of the
> > long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console, because
> > we're able to give this console new life either with software upgrades
> > or hardware upgrades like Project Natal,"
>
> > MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they.  I
> > can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> > not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span.  Ido
> > wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow.   Don't get
> > me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> > the tooth now.  I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> > when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> display that half of us can't see anyway?  I feel like they are still
> making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> incremental.  Long in the tooth compared to what?  PC games?  PC games
> are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.
>
> I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> happening at the moment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

At this point, I'm in agreement with you. I keep seeing improvements
occuring in graphics, and at this point, it would be rather
counterproductive to have developers have to reinvent the wheel by
adapting to a new console, when it's clear many of the games so far
have seen technological advancements at the expense of depth. Look at
GTA IV; yes, it's a great game, with super atmosphere........but when
you compare it to GTA:San Andreas, it's a step back in many non-
graphical aspects. The variety of vehicles is scaled way back, as are
the variety of missions, and the scope of the environment. The
original Assassin's Creed was also great atmospherically, and had good
mechanics, but so much time was needed for the tech aspects that the
game itself suffered; it took another couple years and a sequel to
actually get the franchise up to snuff. I think 2010 may be when we
see developers comfortable enough with the technology to start
focusing more on game content......and that means we, as consumers,
deserve at least a couple more years of games developed as more than
tech demos.

As far as Natal, I hope MS isn't banking too much on this, as I think
they're barking up the wrong tree. I mean, was Eyetoy some great
success story? The Wii succeeded in part because the games and system
were cheaper than the competition (excluding the first year "hardware
scalper" resale prices!!!!). Nintendo has established itself as the
"motion control" company for this generation, and unless MS has some
bona fide, super-awesome games to go with the Natal technology, I
don't see them making a big dent here.

On Jan 11, 2:53 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:20 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The King of Gaming wrote:
>
> > >> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
> > >> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> > >> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I do
> > >> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
> > >> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> > >> the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> > >> when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> > > this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> > > what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> > > display that half of us can't see anyway?
>
> > HD only effects the screen resolution. Screen resolution is only one
> > factor in graphical quality.
>
> It's by far the biggest factor, to the point where there's nothing
> else even worth mentioning. Most of the graphic shortcomings we have
> today are a result of trying to run games at higher resolutions.

It *was* a big factor but we've already made the jump in resolution to
HD. Televisions aren't going to go beyond 1080p for at least another
couple of decades because it's unnecessary and non-beneficial when
most people (e.g. people who own TVs more in the range of 35-45")
already need to sit so close to their television sets to see the
difference between 720p and 1080p that they risk damage to their
vision.

There are certainly improvements that can be made that don't have to
do with increasing resolution, though. For one thing, more memory and
a standard hard drive would allow developers to use high resolution
textures as the norm rather than the exception. Also, a substantially
more powerful processor and GPU would allow developers to improve
visual effects such as mapping, lighting effects, draw distance
(minor, yes, but combined with many other improvements, an ingredient
to a much better visual experience), etc.

> > > I feel like they are still
> > > making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> > > incremental. Long in the tooth compared to what? PC games? PC games
> > > are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.
>
> > PC game's aren't as profitable as console games but they are far from
> > dead. For one thing the PC games market is far more diverse and
> > consoles simply don't have the input hardware to make them viable.
> > Another factor is joint developed games. Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2,
> > Arkam Asylum ect. These games look *far* better and generally play
> > better on a PC.
>
> PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years. No
> important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
> their head. If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
> will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures. That's
> hardly what I'd call life. Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
> used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
> the front page? Dead.

For the games that you and I tend play more often, the PC market is
indeed dead. For the intents and purposes of gamers who have been at
this entertainment for years and years, the PC market is all but
buried. However, there's the whole market of casual gamers and MMO
gamers who keep PC gaming as a whole alive.

World of Warcraft had 11.5 million subscribers in December 2008 and
certainly have more now. There are also many other MMORPGs that we'll
never hear about here in the States - Korea, specifically, is a major
hotbed for online gaming with many games that will never see the light
of day in the U.S. or Europe.

And the casual games market is thriving. Plants vs. Zombies, for
instance, is PopCap's biggest seller to date, which is pretty
impressive considering how popular games like Bejeweled and Zuma are.
Telltale Games is also doing very well.

The PC gaming industry as we knew it a decade ago may be dead but the
new version of the industry is doing quite well.

> > > I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> > > current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> > > happening at the moment.
>
> > I'd say they are. Even very pretty games like Assassins Creed 2 have a
> > lot of very dodgy looking low resolution textures.
>
> You may very well be right, but it's only year 4 for the 360 and year
> 3 for the PS3. Traditionally, we've still seen some growth in those
> years.

Actually, years 4 and 3 just ended. :-)

I think that at least the Xbox 360 is getting pretty close to that
straining point you mentioned earlier. The issue Morgan specifically
called out - low-resolution textures - is not going to get any better
this generation for the Xbox 360. The quality of the textures used is
limited by the hardware specs, which are only going to improve with a
new hardware generation.

The question, though, is whether gamers *need* higher resolution
textures yet. Those of us with experience in the PC gaming world know
to look for issues like these but I guarantee you that most gamers,
who fall into the "never played geeky computer games" bucket, would
never notice these things.

Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Gears of War, Fallout 3, etc. look
beautiful despite the low resolution textures on the console versions
and the typical console gamer isn't going to even know that it could
look any better than this, which is far better than anything they've
ever seen in gaming.

On Jan 11, 2:57 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:25 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 1:47 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 11, 11:50 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Trevor Smithson wrote:
> > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...icrosoft-no-ne...
>
> > > > > Personally I think this is great news as I have no interest is buying
> > > > > a new console from anybody anytime soon. After some of the down sales
> > > > > months last year I figured new boxes were coming sooner rather than
> > > > > later, but I'm glad it's looking like I was off on that one.
>
> > > > > Relevant quotes:
>
> > > > > ""I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of
> > > > > the long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console..."
>
> > > > > "The Xbox 360 was designed for a long life, and I don't even know if
> > > > > we're at the midpoint yet."
>
> > > > > And a complete laugher:
>
> > > > > "but we believe we have a high quality console"
>
> > > > "I think it's important to say that the Xbox 360 is the console of the
> > > > long future for us. There is no need to launch a new console, because
> > > > we're able to give this console new life either with software upgrades
> > > > or hardware upgrades like Project Natal,"
>
> > > > MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
> > > > can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> > > > not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I do
> > > > wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
> > > > me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> > > > the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> > > > when the time is right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> > > this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> > > what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> > > display that half of us can't see anyway?
>
> > Graphical improvements don't *have* to come in the form of resolution
> > increases. Plus, the inclusion of composite cables right now is more a
> > cost-cutting factor than anything else. HDTV is at about 70%
> > penetration in the U.S. now.
>
> > > I feel like they are still
> > > making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> > > incremental. Long in the tooth compared to what? PC games? PC games
> > > are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.
>
> > > I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> > > current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> > > happening at the moment.
>
> > It'll be interesting to see how Mass Effect 2 is. The quality of the
> > graphics seems to have jumped quite a bit but who knows how well the
> > hardware will be able to handle it? I'm just as interested in God of
> > War 3.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> God of War 3 may very well be a Groundhog's day for this generation
> (since the first two were such technology milestones on the PS2). If
> this game doesn't differentiate itself from the pack, it will be
> telling for how much life is left in the PS3...

I think you may be putting way too many expectations on God of War
III, LOL.

The franchise has shifted to a whole new generation of hardware which
is much more powerful than the PlayStation 2. The team could make
substantial improvements to how God of War III looks and the game
might still not look anywhere near as good as other PlayStation 3
titles.

The only thing I need from them is a game that looks like it belongs
in this generation, like it couldn't have been done on the PlayStation
2. Bungie wasn't able to do that with Halo 3, which nearly killed the
franchise for me. On the other hand, Ratchet & Clank, while not the
best game, looked far and away better than any of its predecessors.
Same with Metal Gear Solid 4. So long as God of War III can look
better much better than the two previous games, it'll be just fine.

On Jan 11, 2:37 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
> >> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
> >> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I do
> >> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
> >> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
> >> the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> >> when the time is right.
>
> > Good to know there's *SOMEONE* else here with some good sense.
>
> I don't see why some people seem so reluctant to acknowledge even the
> possibility that this generation is getting well past it's prime. Hell,
> assuming Moore's Law still hold true then it's a scientific fact.

Some people just don't want to spend another $400 on a console... :-)

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2:53 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 1:20 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> And the casual games market is thriving. Plants vs. Zombies, for
> instance, is PopCap's biggest seller to date, which is pretty
> impressive considering how popular games like Bejeweled and Zuma are.
> Telltale Games is also doing very well.

Also strategy games and simulations. Altough I've not seen a worthwhile
(i.e. fun) simulation in years. Also don't forget that games like Half
Life, Left 4 Dead have their roots in the PC.

> The PC gaming industry as we knew it a decade ago may be dead but the
> new version of the industry is doing quite well.

I wouldn't count on it for the moment. I'm not saying that it's as
alive as it was 10 years ago, I agree that it isn't. But I think it's
far more alive than most console only games realise. Also if the
console hardware is left to stagnate for much longer then people will be
seeing what is available elsewhere. I'm certainly shifting back to teh
PC for a lot of games. tHe only reason I'm getting ME2 on the 360 is
for because I wan to import my ME1 savegame. Aliens Vs Predator and
Red Dead Redemption will both be PC purchases for me. Partly for
graphics and partly for mouse/keyboard support.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2:37 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>>> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they. I
>>>> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but it's
>>>> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I do
>>>> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
>>>> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
>>>> the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
>>>> when the time is right.
>>> Good to know there's *SOMEONE* else here with some good sense.
>> I don't see why some people seem so reluctant to acknowledge even the
>> possibility that this generation is getting well past it's prime. Hell,
>> assuming Moore's Law still hold true then it's a scientific fact.
>
> Some people just don't want to spend another $400 on a console... :-)

Then I say we let them keep their consoles and we by new ones. I'm write
to MS and tell them our decision. :-)

The King of Gaming <king.of.gaming@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> display that half of us can't see anyway? I feel like they are still
> making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> incremental. Long in the tooth compared to what? PC games? PC games
> are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.

I don't really see how you can say it's getting long in the tooth. Most
gamers still aren't gaming in HD, so what good is a new console going to
do, really? About the only thing I can think of would be support for
games in "Real 3d" but even that will require higher end HDTVs that even
fewer gamers are going to have.

As for PC games, they're dead...at least, not quite dead.
Technology-wise, PCs still have the edge over consoles - as they always
will because you can always swap out parts in a PC. Higher end PC games
are easily capable of running at higher resolutions than 1080p with all
the pretty graphical bling turned to max, while still maintaining a high
frame rate. Sure, the graphics system alone on some of these systems
is $1000 or more, but no one ever said high-tech was low-price.

> I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> happening at the moment.

No, I really don't see the current games pushing the consoles to their
limits yet, and I certainly wouldn't mind waiting longer before having to
purchase another round of hardware.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

The King of Gaming <king.of.gaming@hotmail.com> wrote:
> PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years. No
> important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
> their head. If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
> will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures. That's
> hardly what I'd call life. Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
> used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
> the front page? Dead.

You're kidding, right? What about WoW? GalCiv2? Civ IV? Peggle?!?

I'll grant you that retail versions of PC games have been dying off left
and right, and have been for the past 15 years or so, but they're not
entirely extinct. At least, not yet.

I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.

Digital download is the area that PC games have started to re-emerge
from. Steam, Impulse, Direct2Drive, to name a few, are offering both new
and older titles at discount prices. This is also opening the market to
smaller, independent developers who would never have a chance of getting
the attention of a retail publisher, like EA.

If anything, we're seeing PC gaming return to the time of the early 90s
when shareware was all the rage until a certain shareware title called
DOOM showed up and literally reshaped the whole industry.


--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

Morgan <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> It's by far the biggest factor, to the point where there's nothing
>> else even worth mentioning. Most of the graphic shortcomings we have
>> today are a result of trying to run games at higher resolutions.
>
> I'm sorry but that statement isn't true at all. Texture resolution, mesh
> complexity, pixel shaders, texture smoothing, anisotropic filtering,
> anti aliasing, complex shadows, lighting effects, bump mapping. That's
> juts off the top of my head.

None of which is going to do you much good if you don't have some decent
screen resolution available to you. Wasn't there an article from the
developer of Gears of War that claimed only 40% of 360 owners are using a
HDTV? Granted that article is now a bit old, and I'm sure the percentages
have climbed up a bit, but certainly not by that much, meaning there's
still a LOT of gamers who are still playing on a 320x480i TV. Even if
Microsoft did put out a 720 that conservatively just doubles whatever
specs the 360 has, these players aren't going to see any difference.

> Define an "important" game.

I listed some. Granted, sales of a 100,000 units makes a PC
game quite a success, whereas even a horrible movie tie-in console game
will sell millions across multiple platforms.

>> You may very well be right, but it's only year 4 for the 360 and year
>> 3 for the PS3. Traditionally, we've still seen some growth in those
>> years.
>
> 4 year old technology is very out of date. This is scientific fact.

Out of date doesn't make it useless. For what it's supposed to
accomplish, the 360 is still a capable console, as compared to the PS2
situation, which was clearly shown to be graphically inadequate even when
the original Xbox showed up with its ability to support 16:9 480p. Even
so, the PS2 arguably had the better game library.

Even at 4 years old, I don't really think we've seen developers push
either the PS3 or the 360 to their very limits. Yeah, we hear about how
so-and-so developer claims "we maxed ou the box with our title" but then
next year the same developer makes the same claim, yet the graphics look
even better.

There's also the issue of price. This generation has clearly shown that
the initial hardware price IS a huge concern. Sony's thinking that people
would just "save their lunch money" to buy a PS3 regardless of the price
were in for a very rude awakening as PS3s sat on shelves largely ignored
due to their initial price tags. Even Microsoft was pushing things
pricing the 360 at $400 initially. I think next generation will see a
return to the $300 launch console. I really think they have to, otherwise
people will just hold on to their PS3 or 360 for a few more years.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c82f85a-86bc-429e-bf77-0e87979dd8e1@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 11, 2:37 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> >> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they.
>> >> I
>> >> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but
>> >> it's
>> >> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span. I
>> >> do
>> >> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow. Don't get
>> >> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very long in
>> >> the tooth now. I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
>> >> when the time is right.
>>
>> > Good to know there's *SOMEONE* else here with some good sense.
>>
>> I don't see why some people seem so reluctant to acknowledge even the
>> possibility that this generation is getting well past it's prime. Hell,
>> assuming Moore's Law still hold true then it's a scientific fact.
>
> Some people just don't want to spend another $400 on a console... :-)

I feel the same sentiments really. But, for a nexgen console, it would have
to have more powerful hardware to produce better graphics, not only in
visuals, but physics, mappings, etc, otherwise what's the point. It will
also need (at least IMO) 2gigs RAM if there's any hope to have noticeable
higher res textures.. At this stage in the game when looking at some of the
really good looking games already seen on the 360 and the PS3, to make a
noticeable dent in the looks and performance, I don't know if it would be
cost effective. I am not saying this because they couldn't do a console like
this and launch it, more than probably MS (and even Sony) are not really
into going to go into a next gen losing money on the scale they did right at
launch this gen.

The economy is a factor as well when concerning the risk taking concerning
making quicker profits, not going to happen as long as unemployment is the
way it should be for at least another year or two when sales could possibly
start off lukewarm at best. They will probably wait until powerful enough
hardware is economically feasible enough to launch with a better chance at
creating profits from the hardware, while offering a (hopefully) cheaper
launch price point than this gen.

MS would do itself a favor if it would drop Nadal as well, because, I think
they're losing focus on console gaming development dropping money into
something I don't think is going to be any major component in gaming or
profits.

Doug Jacobs wrote:
> Morgan <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It's by far the biggest factor, to the point where there's nothing
>>> else even worth mentioning. Most of the graphic shortcomings we have
>>> today are a result of trying to run games at higher resolutions.
>> I'm sorry but that statement isn't true at all. Texture resolution, mesh
>> complexity, pixel shaders, texture smoothing, anisotropic filtering,
>> anti aliasing, complex shadows, lighting effects, bump mapping. That's
>> juts off the top of my head.
>
> None of which is going to do you much good if you don't have some decent
> screen resolution available to you.

Rubbish. In layman's terms, take a look at the DVD release of Beowulf.
That is no less limited by resolution then any other computer rendered
image. Does HD 360 game look even close to that outside cutscenes?

> Wasn't there an article from the
> developer of Gears of War that claimed only 40% of 360 owners are using a
> HDTV? Granted that article is now a bit old, and I'm sure the percentages
> have climbed up a bit, but certainly not by that much, meaning there's
> still a LOT of gamers who are still playing on a 320x480i TV. Even if
> Microsoft did put out a 720 that conservatively just doubles whatever
> specs the 360 has, these players aren't going to see any difference.
>
>> Define an "important" game.
>
> I listed some.

If you did it never appeared on my news feed.

> Granted, sales of a 100,000 units makes a PC
> game quite a success,

Success != importance.

For example, Thief the Dark Project was not a commercially successful
game yet it was a major influence on the industry.

On Jan 12, 11:42 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2:53 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Jan 11, 1:20 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> > And the casual games market is thriving. Plants vs. Zombies, for
> > instance, is PopCap's biggest seller to date, which is pretty
> > impressive considering how popular games like Bejeweled and Zuma are.
> > Telltale Games is also doing very well.
>
> Also strategy games and simulations.  Altough I've not seen a worthwhile
> (i.e. fun) simulation in years.  Also don't forget that games like Half
> Life, Left 4 Dead have their roots in the PC.

I didn't forget. It simply has no bearing on the current state of the
PC gaming industry. While Valve is admirably still trying to support
their PC-centric fans, almost every other major company out there is
much more focused on the console gamers.

While there are still PC versions of games that have better graphics,
better multiplayer options, etc. any one of those companies would drop
PC support if they had to choose that or dropping consoles.

> > The PC gaming industry as we knew it a decade ago may be dead but the
> > new version of the industry is doing quite well.
>
> I wouldn't count on it for the moment.  I'm not saying that it's as
> alive as it was 10 years ago, I agree that it isn't. But I think it's
> far more alive than most console only games realise.  Also if the
> console hardware is left to stagnate for much longer then people will be
> seeing what is available elsewhere.  I'm certainly shifting back to teh
> PC for a lot of games.  tHe only reason I'm getting ME2 on the 360 is
> for because I wan to import my ME1 savegame.   Aliens Vs Predator and
> Red Dead Redemption will both be PC purchases for me.  Partly for
> graphics and partly for mouse/keyboard support.

You're speaking from the viewpoint of a person who used to play PC
games, though. The overwhelming majority of console gamers never
played Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Warcraft (proper), Neverwinter Nights,
etc. and so forth on the PC. At best, they dabbled in The Sims and
some of PopCap's offerings. Certainly none of these fans are going to
spend hundreds more dollars upgrading their PCs or even more money
than that buying whole new PCs just to play a few games at their
computer desks in their bedrooms.

When you remove all of the casual and MMO games from the PC games
market, the remainder of the games - RTS, RPG, FPS, etc. - combine to
make up a rather small portion of the total games market.

The PlayStation 3 would look like the Wii next to the PC as far as
game sales are concerned.

On Jan 12, 4:04 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years.  No
> > important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
> > their head.  If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
> > will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures.  That's
> > hardly what I'd call life.  Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
> > used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
> > the front page?  Dead.
>
> You're kidding, right?  What about WoW?  GalCiv2?  Civ IV?  Peggle?!?
>
> I'll grant you that retail versions of PC games have been dying off left
> and right, and have been for the past 15 years or so, but they're not
> entirely extinct.  At least, not yet.
>
> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.

LOL

The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
last.

> Digital download is the area that PC games have started to re-emerge
> from.  Steam, Impulse, Direct2Drive, to name a few, are offering both new
> and older titles at discount prices.

So you're saying it's good that these consumers are only buying games
once they're so old they can only be sold for discounted prices? I
know *you* like to shop like that but that can't be good for the
industry.

> This is also opening the market to
> smaller, independent developers who would never have a chance of getting
> the attention of a retail publisher, like EA.

Smaller, independent developers who tend to make *casual* games. We're
not seeing full blown games that could ever be interesting enough to
be sold at retail for $40-50 alongside games like Crysis, Modern
Warfare, Left4Dead, Mass Effect, etc.

> If anything, we're seeing PC gaming return to the time of the early 90s
> when shareware was all the rage until a certain shareware title called
> DOOM showed up and literally reshaped the whole industry.

Which is *bad.* Back then, it was okay because there wasn't as big a
differential between the two sides of the gaming industry. There were
many types of games that you *had* to have a PC to play since the
consoles weren't capable of those kinds of games.

Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
consumer.

On Jan 12, 3:53 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I somewhat agree it's getting long in the tooth, but when you consider
> > this generation's consoles are still shipping with composite cables,
> > what the hell is another super duper console going to come along and
> > display that half of us can't see anyway?  I feel like they are still
> > making progress with technology in games, even if it is somewhat
> > incremental.  Long in the tooth compared to what?  PC games?  PC games
> > are dead, and have been dead for a long time now.
>
> I don't really see how you can say it's getting long in the tooth.  Most
> gamers still aren't gaming in HD, so what good is a new console going to
> do, really?  About the only thing I can think of would be support for
> games in "Real 3d" but even that will require higher end HDTVs that even
> fewer gamers are going to have.
>
> As for PC games, they're dead...at least, not quite dead.  
> Technology-wise, PCs still have the edge over consoles - as they always
> will because you can always swap out parts in a PC.  Higher end PC games
> are easily capable of running at higher resolutions than 1080p with all
> the pretty graphical bling turned to max, while still maintaining a high
> frame rate.  Sure, the graphics system alone on some of these systems
> is $1000 or more, but no one ever said high-tech was low-price.
>
> > I really don't want to buy another console until I feel like the
> > current games are straining against the edge... and that ain't
> > happening at the moment.
>
> No, I really don't see the current games pushing the consoles to their
> limits yet, and I certainly wouldn't mind waiting longer before having to
> purchase another round of hardware.

The Xbox 360 is just about maxed out. You're not going to see games
that look better than Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, etc. Hell, if
BioWare was telling the truth in that article Jonah recently posted
about the short turnaround time for Mass Effect 3, even the developers
aren't going to try to get any better.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:

> I didn't forget. It simply has no bearing on the current state of the
> PC gaming industry. While Valve is admirably still trying to support
> their PC-centric fans, almost every other major company out there is
> much more focused on the console gamers.
>
> While there are still PC versions of games that have better graphics,
> better multiplayer options, etc. any one of those companies would drop
> PC support if they had to choose that or dropping consoles.

I'm not disputing that the console market is more lucrative, or that
console gaming is more popular. I'm simply saying that's it's completely
and total incorrect to say that PC gaming is dead because it clearly isn't.

>>> The PC gaming industry as we knew it a decade ago may be dead but the
>>> new version of the industry is doing quite well.
>> I wouldn't count on it for the moment. I'm not saying that it's as
>> alive as it was 10 years ago, I agree that it isn't. But I think it's
>> far more alive than most console only games realise. Also if the
>> console hardware is left to stagnate for much longer then people will be
>> seeing what is available elsewhere. I'm certainly shifting back to teh
>> PC for a lot of games. tHe only reason I'm getting ME2 on the 360 is
>> for because I wan to import my ME1 savegame. Aliens Vs Predator and
>> Red Dead Redemption will both be PC purchases for me. Partly for
>> graphics and partly for mouse/keyboard support.
>
> You're speaking from the viewpoint of a person who used to play PC
> games, though. The overwhelming majority of console gamers never
> played Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Warcraft (proper), Neverwinter Nights,
> etc. and so forth on the PC. At best, they dabbled in The Sims and
> some of PopCap's offerings. Certainly none of these fans are going to
> spend hundreds more dollars upgrading their PCs or even more money
> than that buying whole new PCs just to play a few games at their
> computer desks in their bedrooms.

Depends, give it another year and magazines like Games TM are still
multi platform, *some* people are gonna think "bloody hell the graphics
on that look nice. I'm not saying that PC game sales will sky rocket.
I'm just saying that there will be a period of measurable growth.

> When you remove all of the casual and MMO games from the PC games
> market, the remainder of the games - RTS, RPG, FPS, etc. - combine to
> make up a rather small portion of the total games market.

But you can't just decide to ignore a large chunk of a platform because
it suits you. It make no less sense to day "If you discount all, third
person action games and sports games then the console market isn't doing
much better than the PC one."

I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with you on though. Like I
said, I'm not suggesting that the current state of the PC market is
comparable to that of consoles. Just that it's not dead.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:

>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>
> LOL
>
> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
> last.

But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
also available for consoles is immaterial.

> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
> consumer.

The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond screen resolution.

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fda5adaf-e28b-4524-82d7-5caeb2367fe0@t6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 12, 4:04 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>> The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years. No
>> > important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
>> > their head. If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
>> > will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures. That's
>> > hardly what I'd call life. Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
>> > used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
>> > the front page? Dead.
>>
>> You're kidding, right? What about WoW? GalCiv2? Civ IV? Peggle?!?
>>
>> I'll grant you that retail versions of PC games have been dying off left
>> and right, and have been for the past 15 years or so, but they're not
>> entirely extinct. At least, not yet.
>>
>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>
> LOL
>
> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
> last.
>
>> Digital download is the area that PC games have started to re-emerge
>> from. Steam, Impulse, Direct2Drive, to name a few, are offering both new
>> and older titles at discount prices.
>
> So you're saying it's good that these consumers are only buying games
> once they're so old they can only be sold for discounted prices? I
> know *you* like to shop like that but that can't be good for the
> industry.
>
>> This is also opening the market to
>> smaller, independent developers who would never have a chance of getting
>> the attention of a retail publisher, like EA.
>
> Smaller, independent developers who tend to make *casual* games. We're
> not seeing full blown games that could ever be interesting enough to
> be sold at retail for $40-50 alongside games like Crysis, Modern
> Warfare, Left4Dead, Mass Effect, etc.
>
>> If anything, we're seeing PC gaming return to the time of the early 90s
>> when shareware was all the rage until a certain shareware title called
>> DOOM showed up and literally reshaped the whole industry.
>
> Which is *bad.* Back then, it was okay because there wasn't as big a
> differential between the two sides of the gaming industry. There were
> many types of games that you *had* to have a PC to play since the
> consoles weren't capable of those kinds of games.
>
> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
> consumer.

That's not the only real advantage. Controls layouts are typically better,
more developed with easier (and sometimes with more) command usage; Mass
Effect, Oblivion and especially Dragon Age are good examples of a few
mentionable games (compare Dragon Age or Mass Effect commands to that of the
360, and it is night and day). You also are much less likely to experience
long load times and frame-rate problems on the PC as well. Count in the
modding community that can enhance graphics and character development in
many RPGs. Though I loved the RPGs on the Xbox (KOTOR, Fable, etc) and the
360 (Oblivion, ME, Fallout 3, etc), I always felt left behind, but that
genre group is pretty small. Most consolers like platform games, shooters,
fighting/racing games and that's where most of the money is.

My hope is, that next gen the hardware and storage capabilities will be good
enough to provide the abilties PC games offer. I would even hope that in the
future, modding would be allowed on console games.

On Jan 13, 11:04 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > I didn't forget. It simply has no bearing on the current state of the
> > PC gaming industry. While Valve is admirably still trying to support
> > their PC-centric fans, almost every other major company out there is
> > much more focused on the console gamers.
>
> > While there are still PC versions of games that have better graphics,
> > better multiplayer options, etc. any one of those companies would drop
> > PC support if they had to choose that or dropping consoles.
>
> I'm not disputing that the console market is more lucrative, or that
> console gaming is more popular. I'm simply saying that's it's completely
> and total incorrect to say that PC gaming is dead because it clearly isn't.

For all intents and purposes, we're talking about the "traditional" PC
gaming *market.* I think anyone, myself included, who says it's
completely dead is just hyperbolizing to make a point, but it's clear
that the market is dead. It doesn't matter if there are still millions
of people playing Counter-strike or some RTS online... if they're not
buying the latest and greatest games right now at full or close to
full price, either because they don't want to or the developers don't
feel the need to produce them for the PC, that means the market is a
pathetic shell of what it used to be.

'Dems da facts.

> >>> The PC gaming industry as we knew it a decade ago may be dead but the
> >>> new version of the industry is doing quite well.
> >> I wouldn't count on it for the moment.  I'm not saying that it's as
> >> alive as it was 10 years ago, I agree that it isn't. But I think it's
> >> far more alive than most console only games realise.  Also if the
> >> console hardware is left to stagnate for much longer then people will be
> >> seeing what is available elsewhere.  I'm certainly shifting back to teh
> >> PC for a lot of games.  tHe only reason I'm getting ME2 on the 360 is
> >> for because I wan to import my ME1 savegame.   Aliens Vs Predator and
> >> Red Dead Redemption will both be PC purchases for me.  Partly for
> >> graphics and partly for mouse/keyboard support.
>
> > You're speaking from the viewpoint of a person who used to play PC
> > games, though. The overwhelming majority of console gamers never
> > played Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Warcraft (proper), Neverwinter Nights,
> > etc. and so forth on the PC. At best, they dabbled in The Sims and
> > some of PopCap's offerings. Certainly none of these fans are going to
> > spend hundreds more dollars upgrading their PCs or even more money
> > than that buying whole new PCs just to play a few games at their
> > computer desks in their bedrooms.
>
> Depends, give it another year and magazines like Games TM are still
> multi platform, *some* people are gonna think "bloody hell the graphics
> on that look nice.  I'm not saying that PC game sales will sky rocket.
> I'm just saying that there will be a period of measurable growth.

I don't think that's the case at all. Most consumers aren't going to
spend tons of money to buy a new PC or upgrade an existing one just to
have better graphics for the same games they can play on their
consoles. If what you're saying is accurate, they'd have already
forsaken consoles for PCs because "bloody hell the graphics on that
look nice" has always applied to the PC versions of games.

> > When you remove all of the casual and MMO games from the PC games
> > market, the remainder of the games - RTS, RPG, FPS, etc. - combine to
> > make up a rather small portion of the total games market.
>
> But you can't just decide to ignore a large chunk of a platform because
> it suits you.  It make no less sense to day "If you discount all, third
> person action games and sports games then the console market isn't doing
> much better than the PC one."

I absolutely can within the context of the discussion. I already
established a couple posts ago that I was referring to the PC games
market "as we knew it." The one that exists today is an extremely
different one - genres that didn't really exist about a decade ago are
the only ones that are thriving while the types of games that were
predominantly "PC only" have been snatched away by the consoles. It
wasn't *that* long ago that you *had* to own a PC if you wanted even a
half-decent first-person shooter experience. Now, games like Halo and
Gears of War, two decidedly console series, and Call of Duty, a series
that got its start on the PC but gained real momentum only this
generation on the consoles are synonymous with FPS while games like
Crysis go largely ignored.

Most gamers would never even know a game existed until it came out on
one of the consoles.

> I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with you on though. Like I
> said, I'm not suggesting that the current state of the PC market is
> comparable to that of consoles. Just that it's not dead.

My core disagreement in this thread centers around the notion that
hardcore PC gaming is poised to make any sort of noticeable comeback.
The core reason behind most PC-to-console switches was cost and it
will be a long time before the economy has recovered enough for anyone
to even consider the luxury of switching in the other direction.