digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at gamedaily.com —

'Consoles Are a Problem,' says Oddword Developer

gamedaily.com — While consoles seem to dominate the gaming landscape now more than ever – as indicated by once PC-only developers like id Software, Valve, Crytek and Epic flocking to consoles – Lorne Lanning of Oddworld fame actually views consoles as a significant problem for this industry.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • NinjaGod, on 09/05/2008, -27/+18That's why I plan on being a PC developer.
    • anononon, on 09/07/2008, -11/+15Enjoy your unemployment checks.
      • seraph582, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Riiiight.

        Step1 - make a monster.com account
        Step2 - put C# and J2EE on your resume and list of skills
        Step3 - give them your phone number

        your phone will ring off the hook w/ people looking to match you to a job. I had to switch phone numbers it got so bad. A friend of mine didn't know I did and asked for me, and the poor person who inherited my old number asked them "Who is this guy? Is he important or something??"
      • Ericdigital, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3getting into a high end game dev studio isn't quite that easy however.

        competition is fierce!
      • NerdyDiggers, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1@seraph582:

        J2EE hasn't existed for a while. You might want to list 'Java EE' instead.
      • Valiantheart, on 09/07/2008, -0/+0Nobody writes video games in C#. Its too damn slow.
      • Elranzer, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1Xbox 360 games are written in C#.

        The more you know™
    • N01SE, on 09/07/2008, -2/+1Consoles will become PCs, what can a console do that a PC can't do now or couldn't do in the future?
      PC gaming will see a revival, you can replace all your obsolete games and consoles (which will eventually end up in a land fill anyway) with a single PC that runs emulators and next-gen PC titles.
      • Blandyman, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4Never gonna happen, except in your fantasy world.

        No matter even if a computer can do the same thing as a console, even word processing and internet browsing, there will always be console manufacturers who make stuff proprietary just to make the money and have that whole exclusive deal going on.

        Besides, why sell a computer and the feature be playing games (which will attract general audiences but not as many gamers) instead of a game console, which can also do computer (which attracts the more liquidable - read, richer - gamer crowd.)
      • N01SE, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1So, console manufacturers couldn't start selling proprietary PCs customized for gaming, is that not what a console is? Add a desktop OS, keyboard, and mouse to any console and you've got a multi-purpose next-gen gaming PC.
      • Blandyman, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1N01SE:

        That's exactly what I said. Nintendo would just sell a PC that only plays games that are licensed by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft would do the same... I think the PS3 is the closest to that possibility, what with allowing Yellow Dog to be installed on it.
  • xavyre, on 09/06/2008, -25/+17Finally a dev with intelligence and foresight. Dugg.
  • Gimjee, on 09/06/2008, -27/+16Consoles aren't a problem. They can run PC games, especially the 360, just as easily a console can, or better depending on your PC because it's built for gaming. I would rather pay a one time thing for a console, rather than having to upgrade my PC every once in a while spending hundreds of dollars at a time just to play a new game. And frankly, I think they could make games cheaper, but I don't know much about that stuff, so if someone can explain why then please do so.
    • Fozefy, on 09/06/2008, -8/+16You missed the entire point of this article didn't you. This was talking about cost from the developers end not the consumers. So your last sentence means you didn't understand a word you read in this article. Don't voice your opinion when you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I hate people like that!
      • Gimjee, on 09/06/2008, -18/+5You're an idiot. I didn't miss the entire article, since I'm talking about it. This is about consoles being a problem because of price, and that's what I talked about.
      • Liferr7, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3You still didnt get the point.
      • Shaflugi, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2It's about price on the DEVELOPER end.
    • robertnealan, on 09/06/2008, -5/+18You realistically only need to upgrade your PC ever 3-5 years to keep up with newer games, whereas you have to pay $250-$600 for one or more consoles. On top of that, PC games are consistently $50 or less when released, whereas many PS3 & 360 games are going for $60.
      • doshindude, on 09/07/2008, -9/+15new console=$600ish
        PC Upgrade (a decent one)=$1000-1200

        I don't see your logic.
      • truspect0r, on 09/07/2008, -4/+6*****. Games would look ugly/unoptimized then the urge and the games themselves would need the owner to upgrade. The time I had and played the PS2 alone I went from a R9000, 6600GT, 7600GT, 8600GT.

        Now I'm not sure how long will this 8800GT last.
      • ganeshsugunan, on 09/07/2008, -7/+3I'd have to say the new console is $800 ish, but the PC upgrade is really usually closer to $400 to $600; you usually don't need to buy the absolute newest graphics card the week it comes out.
      • twiztidsinz, on 09/07/2008, -1/+131000~1200 for upgrades? What, do you buy your PCs at BestBuy? or do you just run a Mac?

        For around $550 I was able to buy this about 4 1/2 years ago:
        Intel Pentium 4 550 Prescott 3.4GHz LGA 775 (w/ Hyper-Threading), Intel 915PBL motherboard, 2048MB (512x4) DDR2 533 (PC2 4200) Dual Channel Corsair memory, Sapphire RADEON X1600 XT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16.
        Tossed it in a cheap-o case (which I have since upgraded to Thermaltake's Tsunami VA3000BWA) and put in my 80GB, 250GB and 500GB harddrives.
      • Brandoskey, on 09/07/2008, -1/+7pc's are upgradeable, you don't need to shell out 1000 dollars for a new pc, you can instead spend a couple hundred every year or two on on a new video card, or more ram, cpu upgrades are about the rarest of all.

        in the end it's about even, you figure pc games are cheaper, also you may want to upgrade more often, but you only spend a third of what a console costs at launch each time, so in the time the console is on top of its game you end up spending about the same on upgrading your pc as you would for the new console.

        pc's also allow older systems to play newer games at lower visual details, if the game is a good game, your ability to play it should not hinge on how awesomely awesome the foliage looks.

        truspect0r, quit buying low end crappy video cards and you want have this problem. the 8800gt and 6600gt are about the only good choices you made.

        and doshindude is just using flawed console fanboy logic, nothing based on the real world.
      • Stevethegreat, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6PC gaming was always cheaper, especially nowadays, you only need a decent video card to game and that thing rarely has to cost more than $150. Put an HD4850 (an $150 card) in a 4 year old PC and maybe buy another stick of ram ($15) and you'll play all games available today (par Crysis of course) on maximum detail, I fail to see YOUR point.

        In fact a new PC (build from scratch) built today can play Crysis in full detail (very high/1080p) if you are to pay $1200 and that's an overkill (GTX280 SLI is the overkill you buy with such money)
      • alliekins619, on 09/07/2008, -3/+7@ganeshsugunan: $800 for a new console? What are you buying, a PS4?
      • norman619, on 09/07/2008, -2/+6All the arguments from console fanboys against he cost of a PC seem to be totally ignorant of one very important thing. A PC isn't a gaming console. It's a multipurpose machine. I use mine to edit video, do some 3D modeling, watch videos, writing, art, photo editing, email, web browsing, torrents, and so on as well as play the latest games. Taking all this into consideration the PC is clearly the cheaper of the two. A PC is much more cost effective machine than a gaming console ever will be. A console can play games and play DVD's. A PC does that and more. PC games, by this I mean games developed for the PC not console ports, tend to be richer and better. I have played console ports of PC games and they are always watered down and extremely disappointing. PC ports of console games tend to feel like a console game. Very restrictive and the controls too simplistic. Gears of War is a great example of this. The game looked better on the PC but the game play sucked.
      • nobody98, on 09/07/2008, -1/+5Plus the fact that FPS's, strategy games and mmos will never be as awesome/convenient to play on a hand held controller as they are with a mouse and keyboard.
        Once consoles fully support a mouse and keyboard... THAT will be quite a blow for the pc gaming market.
      • solid12345, on 09/07/2008, -3/+5PC hardware is a waste of money. I have a Geforce 8800gtx which was top of the line 2 years ago, and the only game that really takes advantage of the hardware is Crysis. Anymore people want the best video card now just so they can brag they can run old-ass games like Quake 3 at 300 FPS but really it means nothing. Why is it inferior hardware like the Xbox 360 and PS3 have better visual games? Because developers are taking full advantage of what they got unlike PC developers who work to make their games work on 3-4 year-old cards. You can't take the resolution argument of PC games anymore either since modern consoles have HD output.

        Believe me, I love PC gaming, but seriously I want to know when PC developers are going to throw some visually mindblowing games at me that will make use of all 8 gigs of my ram and 768 megs of video ram.
      • twiztidsinz, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2"Believe me, I love PC gaming, but seriously I want to know when PC developers are going to throw some visually mindblowing games at me that will make use of all 8 gigs of my ram and 768 megs of video ram."

        Overkill much?
        Also.. as far as I can tell... a game will, while the active application, use as much RAM as is available to it. I could be wrong, but most games will use more than the average person has RAM (i.e. over 1~2GB) and the rest spills over to your swap partition (VirtualMemory in windows) which is slower.
      • Zyphron, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2@Solid12345
        Maybe then you should not buy crazy over the top upgrades.
        There are two groups that are supporting the "PC Gaming is so expesive" nonsense.

        The first are console weenies who have never actually done any pc gaming and are incapable of figuring out what is necessary in order to buy a cheap quality gaming computer.

        The second are the PC gaming people who for some reason feel the need to buy the latest possible upgrades and then whine about how much they cost.

        Best value always comes from buying a generation or two older. This generally means video cards and processors somewhere in the realm of $150 - $200. Paying $500+ just does not make sense since you can buy a $150 video card every year for the next 3 years for less than the price of a single upgrade.
  • Haoie, on 09/06/2008, -6/+101Ironically, the Oddworld games began life on a console, the PS1.
  • aereaus, on 09/06/2008, -23/+6I totally agree with this article. In my view I'm not spending a few hundred Euro on a console to play games with ***** controls etc. My PC can do tons more then just play games, so why spend money and send money to Sony and Microsoft, both of which I hate. Consoles are old school in my opinion. I had an Atari back in the 80's, and by the time I got my IBM 386 I had left console gaming behind. I look at consoles as gaming platforms for the masses, those that can't handle a computer. Problem is most of the masses have a computer now too. I just think it's a waste of money to have both.
    • Unknown038, on 09/07/2008, -7/+5i got news for you: if your playing games on a windows pc, you're still sending money to microsoft. in fact, depending on the version of windows, you may very well be sending them even more than the price of a console.
      • TiMMY8765, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5only if he paid for his copy of windows
      • TheGuruStud, on 09/07/2008, -2/+3Dugg unknown down for lack of thought. What moron would pay for a copy of windows or anything else M$ produced.

        There's some, but not this guy.
    • noumuon, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5fail for not getting an NES. you missed out on the time when consoles were actually worth it.
  • SPJglitches, on 09/06/2008, -6/+18Dugg for outspoken developer not being Denis Dyack.
    • Archaic1, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2Who?
    • JustinHopewell, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2I gotta agree. I sympathized with him at first, but every month there's been another interview or two with him defending Too Human, which is really making it out to be worse than it is. The game isn't terrible, I bought it and had my fun with it, despite its frustrating flaws, but Dyack constantly trying to defend all it's complaints isn't working. Just own up to what worked and what didn't. Move on to Eternal Darkness 2 and everyone will be happy with you again.
    • volacide, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1I would honestly defend Lorne blindly just because of the genius that is Oddworld. From a sheer creative standpoint it's mind boggling what he and his team have cooked up. Always producing top quality work. I don't always agree with what he's saying but I'm always left desperately wanting them to finish out the quintology.

      The games aren't for everyone by any means, but they're certainly unlike any other game ever.
  • Crushkilla, on 09/06/2008, -16/+4Good. Dugg.
    • Inohavehalos, on 09/07/2008, -5/+2Bad. Buried.
      • Poggins, on 09/07/2008, -0/+0There's only so many times one can see the same regurgitated comments over and over again.

        If you REALLY don't have anything to say, why bother posting at all?
  • logicalnoise, on 09/06/2008, -7/+35Lorne was a great developer and I hope his latest oddworld creations help him become successful but honestly he got screwed over a couple things couldn't control and has been bitching about it ever since. PC gaming has too many hitchs to it to ever capture the true casual market. I custom buld my PC's and enjoy a PC game from time to time but honestly It's rarely worth the hassle. I get way more fun out of my 360. The PC will always be integral to game making but teh truth is game consoles have the market for the mainstream audience and I doubt that will change unless the next genration of game consoles are practically HTPCs with high end graphics hardware.
    • sponeil, on 09/07/2008, -9/+1"unless the next generation of game consoles are practically HTPCs with high end graphics hardware"

      What do you think a 360 is? It runs Windows.
      • Tahiri, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5It runs window's kernal, but not windows
    • P0peRatz0, on 09/07/2008, -4/+7When you talk about "casual gaming" remember that a lot more people have PCs than have consoles.
      • SSUK, on 09/07/2008, -2/+11Yeah, £150 ones with Internal graphics chipsets. You try playing anything in the last 3 years on that. You'll get pixel shader errors for sure.
      • ortucis, on 09/07/2008, -3/+2Casual gamers don't play games with Shader Model 10. OHHHH, retard.

    • norman619, on 09/07/2008, -6/+7What hassle? You buy the game, install it, and play. It's pretty damn simple. People have been predicting the demise of PC gaming for a very long time now. When will you guys be tired of being wrong? All the innovations are done on PC games which then make their way into the next generation of consoles. When the 360 first came out it had graphics and performance that was comparable and in many cases better than existing PC's at that time. That was only true for a few months. Face it consoles are a static platform. It does not lend itself to forward thinking or innovation. All the tech in current consoles came from 3rd generation PC tech. I actually bought a 360 a while ago. I had to move overseas for a while and sold it knowing I would never get to use it and I didn't want to deal with the hassle of shipping it and the games. Now I'm back in the US and guess what? I can't justify buying another one. The small hand full of good games does not justify the cost of the damn thing. It doesn't help when the same AAA games for the console I was looking forward to are already released or going to be released for the PC. The PS3 is totally out of the question. I have owned most of the consoles that came out since the Atari 2600 while growing up. With the exception of the Atari, I never cared for the extremely limiting console controller.
      • frazw, on 09/07/2008, -0/+11What I'd like to see is a dedicated gaming OS for PC hardware or an OS with a mode you can switch on so that it devotes all resources entirely to games. Most OS's have lots of processes running which are entirely unnecessary when playing games. They hog resources and can cause stuttering etc. The OS is the main reason that consoles achieve the same results with lesser hardware, not to mention that developers target the biggest audience.
        It would be nice to be able to halt all unnecessary processes at the touch of a button and bring them all back at the touch of a button, instead of manually closing them or preventing them from starting.
        The momentary demands of an individual non-gaming related process can seriously screw up your game. 90% of the time they don't interfere but that 1 second when they decide to run checks etc could be the 1 second you are killed or crash or whatever. Historically consoles have considerably slower CPUs and GPUs with a lot less memory and yet they still compete rather well with PCs of higher specs. Why? Simply optimisation done mostly in the OS.

        Another point, the last time I had a console was a Megadrive and I stopped after that because they are so expensive. The initial outlay is usually less, but the games cost more. Here in the UK the general price of new console games is about £39.99 and PC games £24.99. These will vary from shop to shop but the difference is approx the same. That's £15 per game. I can buy a reasonable gaming rig for about £500-£600 now if I don't build myself (which I do and it's cheaper) and a console say £200 at release (usually more). Difference is £300 or 20x£15 so after I buy more than 20 games the PC works out cheaper, plus I have my entire back catalogue to play (plus some old consoles and the possibility of all future consoles via emulation) and it will never be abandoned unlike all of the many consoles now in gaming heaven.
        Ok there is the living room aspect but a dedicated OS would solve that after all modern consoles are basically PCs running different software.
      • norman619, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4frazw:

        That's actually not a bad idea.
      • Tahiri, on 09/07/2008, -1/+5"You buy the game, install it, and play. It's pretty damn simple."

        It's never that simple on Windows though
      • Katana314, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Apparently, Tahiri has never heard of a thing called Steam.
      • keeganspeck, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1@frazw:

        I never thought about that before. Ever think of doing something with that idea?
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1@frazw

        I am not disagreeing with you but you have overlooked a major detail.

        PC games use higher screen resolution, and larger textures. This is a major reason why consoles can get by with lesser hardware.

        If you use a texture 1/2 as wide and tall it uses 1/4 of the same memory.
        If you use a resolution 1/2 as wide and tall it takes 1/4 of the time to draw.

        So historically you have seen consoles with slow hardware that offer TV resolution, because they can get away with it on a regular TV.

        New consoles offer HDTV resolutions similar to PC screen resolutions also seem to compare to PC hardware specs. This is why.
      • Dantetheinferno, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Wow. It's not the OS, it's just that the hardware is all the same across platforms, so that they optimize the code incredibly well for that specific piece of hardware, increasing performance.

        Ever wonder why you can't run a 360 emulator even on a Q9775 (think that's the latest), GTX280, all the fancy latest things in PC hardware? Because it's been incredibly optimized for the platform it's on. PC hardware differs incredibly and can't be optimized as well.

        I mean, *****, you can't even run a Ps2 emulator well.
      • Gizza, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1"Most OS's have lots of processes running which are entirely unnecessary when playing games. "

        Open your task manager right now, make sure it is showing all processes. Now count up the total CPU usage for every process that isn't an application that you are actively using. I bet you its no more than about 3%.

        Consoles get away with more because they're running at much lower resolutions, and crappy AA and AF. Even the so called HD consoles often upscale from 720p which is a lower res than most people were using on the PC 10 years ago.
      • taxman, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1The hassle he is talking about; I have a 2 year old high end(when i bought it) laptop. I decided to try the DMC4 demo to check out my performance index. I spend 30 minutes finding a website which allows the download at a good speed (i am out of touch with PC gaming). I do that, install the game, but i can't play it cos my video card lacks something called pixel shaders. So i give up.

        Next up, i find a game which is not available on the consoles. I buy it really cheap, install the damn things. But 20 minutes into the game, my laptop overheats and it shutdowns automatically. So everytime i want to play this game, i have to go to taskmanger and close every process that takes up memory now.

        Even for someone who up until 3 years ago was playing PC games, this is a big hassle compared to gaming on the 360.
      • frazw, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1@Gizza
        "I bet you its no more than about 3%."
        That all depends on what you are doing with your computer when you are not playing games. My dad for instance has loads of processes running and while I think many of them are pointless, he does not. If he wanted to play a game there is a lot of interference. Also it isn't just about average CPU%. It is more about memory and pagefile usage, if you add all of that up it is a lot more than 3%. I want my game to use all of my physical memory not virtual memory because things like explorer are using 20MB. It is also about peak demand. You say add up all of the CPU usage? I'm looking at my task manager right now and the idle CPU is fluctuating between 0 and 89%. That is 300MHz being soaked up, a lot in gaming terms. Mostly of the time is stays aroung 97%-98% and I do have firefox open but my point stands, idle process usage fluctuates unpredictably and most of it is unnecessary for gaming.
        Also the resolution of consoles may be lower but the fact remains PC OSs (specifically windows) are not optimised for gaming and we suffer performance hits because of that.
        Taxman is saying exactly what I meant. Older hardware struggling (when it shouldn't be) with games.
        Supporting varying hardware is an issue but not as big an issue as you'd think.

        @Dantheinferno
        Yeah I take your point about optimisation but you have to remember emulation requires a processing overhead, you have to emulate the hardware and the more complex the system (e.g. the PS3) the bigger the overhead. You also need someone willing to write the damn things and those people are few and far between these days because of the complexity and the fact a lot of people have both PCs and consoles now. Not to mention the fact that people writing emulators have no specs to work from because the systems are closed and proprietary, just reverse engineering so of course it takes time to improve code to a usable level.
      • phoenixshard, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1How about the hassle that DRM is becoming? That is going to not only be a hassle now, and it will only become a bigger and bigger one. I don't have to put up with that on a console. I can also play from the comfort of my couch on a larger screen. I know you can do that with a PC as well, but honestly, the average person that buys a PC isn't going to do that. Speaking of large screens, most TVs are a lot larger than monitors are. I won't go into price on it, as that appears to have been covered several times already.
    • Zyphron, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2Actually, if you read the article, the type of games that he is describing are exactly the ones aimed at people who do not want a hassle for their gaming experience.

      Despite the fact that the 360 leapt ahead initially with a lot of the digital distrubtion and community models, the PC has now come back to a much more successfult platform for those types of services. Gametap, Steam, and the Stardock model are perfect examples of this. They allow the easy download of tons of games quickly, as well as upgrades to those games.

      Any console junkies out there, I urge you to check out steam. It is the future of digital distribution. I am about twice as likely to buy a game if it is available via steam because I know I will never have to worry about losing disks (that happens to me a lot) and I can do it on a whim from the comfort of my home. Plus the games on there range from the latest, with the best graphics to little 5 and 10 dollar indie games. All of which have been wildly successful.
  • cerealjynx, on 09/07/2008, -11/+6Man, an Oddworld MMO would be so badass.
    • Inohavehalos, on 09/07/2008, -3/+4How could that differ from every other MMO out there?
      • statrick, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6umm it would be in oddworld which pretty much owns
  • mwaleed86, on 09/07/2008, -15/+9Talked Like everyone has money to blow on pcs every 6 months!!!...i have my sympathies for the developers but dont think they would come to my help when i run out of money!!
    • jsdratm, on 09/07/2008, -2/+17That is inaccurate, most PCs can last at least 2 years, it is only morons who upgrade every six months
      • RudeTurnip, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5My 360 is going on three years and I'll be using it for a few more most likely.
    • Layne, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3Most games are not made for high end systems. In fact, see the digg article from mere hours ago. Stop trying to use the rare games like Crysis as examples.

      http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/09 ...
    • Deepmist, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1My computer hasn't been upgraded in exactly 3 years this month and I can still run any game out there. Yes even Crysis on lower settings in 1680x1050, most games I can still max out the settings though.
    • bagboyrebel, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Before I bought my current computer, which was in december of last year, I was running off of a six year old computer that I had only done a minor upgrade on once, about 2 years before getting the new one. It was able to run Crysis perfectly on low settings and could run pretty much anything else on medium to high settings. The idea that computers need to be upgraded that much is only true if you buy the lowest end equipment possible each time.
  • iRoy, on 09/07/2008, -21/+57Oh ***** you Oddworld guys.

    Last good game you had was Abe's Odyssey. Cheap bastards.
    • staticneuron, on 09/07/2008, -7/+11"Years ago I was excited about consoles, but anything that makes development more expensive, rather than better, faster, cheaper, I think is a step backwards."

      But he also means with a reduction in quality. Over the last few years I have played more games on the console than the PC. And I found out something awesome. Consoles titles provide less crashes and glitches. Not once did a console game tell me that my hardware components were not supported. And I have honestly had more fun with many more titles than what has landed on the PC.

      Granted Starcraft 2 and diablo 3 will eat my life but in terms of volume and quality I see consoles to be the best things that has happened to gamers.

      All I am hearing now is crying. Yes he is going to have to spend more and take a bigger risk but that's not a problem if his game is going to be awesome right? Normally sales, especially this early in the generation, are attributed to marketing and the sheer quality of a game. We all know odd world. Make the next one phenomenal an the sales will pour in. Other than that... quite whining.
      • breezytrees, on 09/07/2008, -2/+3"Yes he is going to have to spend more and take a bigger risk but that's not a problem if his game is going to be awesome right?"

        That's a problem. All business boils down to "risk vs reward." It's basic business sense. So yes, in that regard, consoles are destroying the games market. I'm looking at you ps3.

        Nobody wants to develop for ps3 because the initial investment to develop for the console is so god damn high. The risk vs reward just makes developing for ps3 a bad business decision. Why would they take that big of a risk when they can just develop easy to make xbox/wii games?

        Xbox has the same architecture as a pc, a smaller technology threshold, and monetary kick-backs from Microsoft for your development. Currently, if your an A-list developer developing a big budget game. It's 100% cheaper to develop it on xbox 360 than to develop it for just PC alone.

        BTW, I have a ps3. I absolutely Love Blue-ray. I Love MGS4 and am pure addicted to PixelJunk. Other than that, I hate the otherwise pitiful game library which is entirely due to the reasons explained above.
      • staticneuron, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1"Nobody wants to develop for ps3 because the initial investment to develop for the console is so god damn high. The risk vs reward just makes developing for ps3 a bad business decision. Why would they take that big of a risk when they can just develop easy to make xbox/wii games?"

        What kind of nonsense are you spouting off now? The time has passed for that now. Its been almost two years already. I am sure most devs not only have a robust library but experienced devs for the PS3. Here's something that might shock you. Games start to cost less to make over time within a generation.

        And there is no way the PS3 alone can be attributed to this. Taking a look at the PS3 exclusives have proven that the reward has been paying off quite well. The only issue would lie at the feet of MP devs and of course it is going to be expensive to dev for multiple consoles but it slightly lowers the risk.

        BTW, its not ruining gaming because if devs don't want to dev for console... its fine. The can stay in the stagnant PC market if they want.
    • JollyDumple, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6I thought Stranger was fun, but it didn't feel very Oddworld-y.
      • dynelol, on 09/07/2008, -6/+1You mean when you sit on your hand until it goes numb then you fap? That's oddworld-y.
    • DNABeast, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3I preferred Abe's Exoddus. They really got the hang of the engine by that point.
  • badenglishihave, on 09/07/2008, -2/+27Lanning on why he's excited about the PC - "... smaller games to be sold that can be delivered to anyone who's connected at much lower price points":

    Steam
    • jsdratm, on 09/07/2008, -1/+15Yup, the first two Oddworld games are on there now
    • frazw, on 09/07/2008, -1/+12and with Steam, they aren't even necessarily smaller games.
    • ben_nushmut, on 09/07/2008, -2/+9smaller games at lower price points? hmm...

      WiiWare, XBL, PSN anybody?
      • quasipolymath, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3Seriously. I don't see how these methods of content delivery don't address his concerns. When you can buy games like Castle Crashers or Braid on XBL or PixelJunk Eden or The Last Guy on PSN for 15 bucks or under AND add DLC to those games over time, it becomes evident that the consoles are not only committed to digital delivery buy they are also no longer holding a gun to your head to buy $60 retail games with 3 year development cycles. These are high quality/low cost and original titles, not some degenerate offering or emulated ports of old games designed to paste in the schedule cracks between retail game releases. These examples are even on the higher end of cost for XBL/PSN games, most are about $6 - $8.

        Now granted, I love Steam. I think that they are a leader in downloadable content delivery. But I also think that the console makers recognize this and are really committed to tearing off a chunk of their market share.
      • AzureRise, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1The problem many developers have with that is licenses, contracts, and many other things restrictions that really hold you back from doing what you want and more than likely your IP will not belong to your company anymore but rather Sony if you put it on PSN etc. Also it isn't like anyone can just get their game on Steam. If you want more info, there was an article a little while back about the troubles of making games for the PSN and such, go and digg it up.
      • Zyphron, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1I dont think you guys realize how many restrictions are on services like WiiWare, XBLA, and PSN. Those restrictions hurt innovation. It is very similar to what happens with the AppStore and the iPhone. The jailbroken apps are much better because they have fewer restrctions.

        Similarly, the PC Digital distribution systems are much cheaper to get into, and do not have size or content restrictions. Also, they have a much wider audience. Many of the samller games that would exist on XBLA could be played on every PC sold in the last 5 years. I have no idea how big the number would be on that, but I am fairly certain that it is significantly larger than the number of all the 3rd gen consoles combined.
  • ProKid, on 09/07/2008, -31/+79Consoles are a problem? They're the solution to gaming. Lets not forget that this is where gaming started. My first computer I built a few years ago had an ATi Radeon 9800 Pro, which at the time was over $400. Now I have a Playstation 3 and my latest rig has a built in GPU. Theres really no reason to spend so much money on a gaming system these days when you can spend however much on a console once and know that for a few years you'll never have to worry about your system not being able to run it. He thinks its a problem, I think its a convenience.
    • SugarCoatedSalt, on 09/07/2008, -12/+14completely agree!
    • squirrelninja, on 09/07/2008, -11/+17i also completely agree. why fork out hundreds of dollars a year to keep a well tuned gaming pc up and current, when for 500 bucks flat rate. you get a gaming system that'll last 4 or 5 years at least.
    • localzuk, on 09/07/2008, -9/+27It might be convenient for you, but it is a massive cost for developers. And as such, game prices are just going to continue to rise, and small developers are going to continue to be bought by EA or go bust.

      Personally, I hate consoles. I have just never gotten into them. But then that may simply be down to the type of games I play.
      • staticneuron, on 09/07/2008, -5/+5Again, if they bring quality to the table they are rewarded for it. It can be seen through the titles across all consoles that have sold millions of copies each.
      • dood, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3There's got to be some tradeoff there. The developers only have to concern themselves with one interface device and system specification per platform, which ought to save them money. With Xbox Live Arcade (and PSN and Wii-Ware) the developer can basically be the publisher, too, and let someone else deal with the mundane payment and downloading details.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2"Exclusive Titles" on consoles suck.

        Cause there's nothing like paying 400$ for a console and then having a game you want to play come out only for a different system, purely because of a marketing gimmick.
      • staticneuron, on 09/08/2008, -5/+1Exclusives aren't a gimmick you dolt. They take advantage of each systems fixed hardware. Therefore providing a result you would not see on another system.
    • BRODEL, on 09/07/2008, -8/+12I couldn't agree more and I'm shocked you haven't been dugg down into oblivion since every pro console comment on an article like this doesn't normally last long.
    • LaughingMan89, on 09/07/2008, -7/+14Trouble with your logic is that even if you have a PS3 (which usually means you bought a TV that's much more expensive than a low-end gaming rig, face it a good TV is much more expensive than a good monitor) you still probably need to have a pc. Now a PS3 + 1 controller will run about $450, add that to the cost of a bare-bones rig and you've got a mediocre gaming rig (which right now would be a good bit better than a console.) Or, for comparison, if you were planning on buying an otherwise decent rig with poor graphics abilities, $450 is about the cost of a GTX280 and you could easily blow all the consoles out of the water.
      • ProKid, on 09/07/2008, -6/+12Yes, but for how long? Thats the point.
      • BRODEL, on 09/07/2008, -5/+8Yes, it's more expensive, but that TV and console are going to last you a lot longer than that low end gaming rig. Next month when the new game comes out and doesn't support your video card, you have to either buy a new card again or just not play that game.

        You can buy a cheaper PC 5 times in the life of a console, but don't think that it's somehow the cheaper alternative.
      • RNEMESiS42, on 09/07/2008, -6/+7@ProKidProKid

        For how long? Until the next console comes out which won't be for a couple more years.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 09/07/2008, -4/+5@BRODEL,
        Most PC games released will run on old hardware. You could get away with 4 years if you spend $400 on a vid card, because the game makers know that not everyone wants to upgrade when a new game is released. If they made you upgrade like you said, then they would sell far fewer games.
      • ncnavguy, on 09/07/2008, -2/+10@ Laughingman, I think most people buy their TV's for things other than Gaming (Like television) so adding that into the cost of a gaming rig is BS. And with the advent of HDTV and cheap lcd a 22in CPU monitor can be used for a console or CPU gaming.
      • Zyphron, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1@Brodel
        "Wont support your video card...."
        Have you ever played a PC Game? Because my old system with an Athlon XP 3200 and a Geforce 6800 will still run all of todays games, just really slowly and crapily. (and when I say old, I mean 3-4 years)

        And as for how long, most video cards will tend to last you somewhere between 2-3 years if you want to push it. Now, admittedly you will end up spending more later, but that is because you can and will want to.

        Lately, system requirements for most games are not pushing systems all that hard because PC games are being developed alongside consoles and a low end PC is better than every console on the market. Only the occasional game that comes out as a PC exclusive (Crysis for example) will truly push system requirements. You can choose to either take advantage of your modular platform and upgrade, or wait and not play that game.

        Given how much I have spent on my 360(Original Unit - 350. Controllers (3) - 90, Wireless - 90, remote - 20 = 550, 120gig HD - 150 = $700) the amount I have spent on my PC is not that much more than my 360. Now admittedly I use both a lot (my 360 is my primary media center as well as gaming machine) and my PC is, you know, a PC (the thing I am currently typing this on, IMing, and emaling on). Both are viable platforms for doing stuff, but I think the consoles have done a much better job of convicning everyone that the PC is not so viable. That at the end of the day is hurtin some of the innovation that PC games tend to bring to the table. Which is a shame.
    • vtnerd, on 09/07/2008, -1/+11Consoles are not the solution and they're not a problem either.

      I have a Wii and it's good for certain things - like bowling and tennis and Mario Kart. However, it would not be good for a FPS shooter which requires a keyboard and a mouse for the best control scheme; I don't care how good you are at Halo (or any other console FPS), give me a keyboard and mouse and I will destroy you and your controller. It would also not be good for any kind of MMO game where I need to type a lot.

      PC's have the latest and greatest graphics and they allow developers to push the envelope because there are no hardware constraints.

      The gaming world needs both IMO and the in-fighting between console and PC is stupid. They each have their strengths and weaknesses and most true "gamers" have at least one of each.
      • wild, on 09/07/2008, -2/+7[give me a keyboard and mouse and I will destroy you and your controller]

        I never understand this mentality. I don;t care how good you are with a kb/m. The argument is completely irrelevant. I use a controller. If you're playing me, you will use a controller. Equal playing field.
      • Murdats, on 09/07/2008, -3/+4the point is why be forced to use an inferior input method?

        its like turning the graphics down on games just because.

        also notice all the RTS's on consoles? and how many RPG's on consoles let you in real time cast from 15 different spells?
      • soupdawg30, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4Well some consoles(PS3 for sure) will alow keyboard and mouse for games if the developer writes it in.
      • phoenixshard, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2Most MMO's are implementing an ingame voice chat, and there's always Teamspeak and Ventrilio. Using a keyboard is becoming less and less needed in MMO's.
    • RNEMESiS42, on 09/07/2008, -7/+2The first computer you built was a few years ago? I feel old, and I'm only 22 : /
    • thatspsychotic, on 09/07/2008, -2/+9The difference now is that the graphics card market has significantly changed since the 9800 Pro. Right now, I can grab a Radeon 4850 for around $160, and that card will play almost any game at realistic resolutions... if I'm building a decent PC anyway, and the difference between gaming on it and not is just $160, I'm sure as hell going to get a graphics card for it over spending $500 more on a console.

      Plus, a gamepad will never play better than a mouse and keyboard.
      • Tahiri, on 09/07/2008, -7/+6"Plus, a gamepad will never play better than a mouse and keyboard."

        http://games.gearlive.com/playfeed/article/bungies ...

        Bungie’s latest Humpday event had members of the Halo 2 Vista development team put their mouse and keyboard skills up against the Bungie Community Team’s gamepad talents. Of course, the Bungie Community Team swept all three rounds, and most weren’t very close. While disparities in overall skill levels make this hardly a scientific test, it seems clear that the gamepad isn’t the handicap that mouse and keyboard gamers would have you believe.
      • Snokage, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7to add to Tahiri's comment.... I'll take a controller over a mouse and keyboard for any race type game....
    • dstz, on 09/07/2008, -2/+11"My first computer I built a few years ago had an ATi Radeon 9800 Pro, which at the time was over $400"

      That's stupid. I'm a PC gamer, and you've got here the price of my whole freakin PC from 5 years ago that i still got (just put a 7600gt 1 1/2 year ago instead of the 9600gt that i had,) and that runs everything to that day (equivalent AMD xp 3500+ after an overclocking on stock heatsink).

      I'll still change it next year and it will not nearly cost me as much as a console, maybe because I'm not stupid enough to put 400$ in a GC.
    • seraph582, on 09/07/2008, -5/+6Sorry guy, but you're out of the loop. Graphics cards are not in the flagship business anymore. The name of the GPU-game is "how much video card can we cram into a $200 card?"

      My $200 runs Crysis maxed out @ 1920x1200

      Consoles are a hindrance to gaming for the purposes that he stated: "Here's $50 - man, I sure hope I love this game!!" Which is usually followed by "omfg this game blows." I can't say I could agree more as a PC gamer that's spent hundreds on wii peripherals I never used and highly regret buying SSB:B.
      • Sethbacca, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4I just sold my Wii yesterday. I figured with the 360 going to $199, that the Wii is due for a price cut in the coming months to keep uneducated parents buying it :)
      • phoenixshard, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1So you're saying you don't take the risk of paying $50 for a game on PC? Most games that are available for use on PS3 and Xbox 360 also have demos of them available for download.
    • Ericdigital, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1I don't want to admit it, but you are absolutely right. It's definitely a convenience.
    • Tahiri, on 09/07/2008, -3/+1http://games.gearlive.com/playfeed/article/bungies ...

      Bungie’s latest Humpday event had members of the Halo 2 Vista development team put their mouse and keyboard skills up against the Bungie Community Team’s gamepad talents. Of course, the Bungie Community Team swept all three rounds, and most weren’t very close. While disparities in overall skill levels make this hardly a scientific test, it seems clear that the gamepad isn’t the handicap that mouse and keyboard gamers would have you believe.
      • Katana314, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3Tahiri: Really? Because I have heard the exact opposite story. PC Gamer people challenged XBox magazine people to a match at Halo 1 on the PC. The only differing factor was that they played using the USB Xbox joysticks. PC Gamer hadn't played in years, and the XBox magazine guys had been playing for a LONG time. They even got to pick the map. The result was a 2-1 kill ratio, for the PC Gamer people.

        There you have it. Directly contradicting evidence.
      • Spire3660, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2A better example is the Shadowrun dev team. Shadowrun is a cross platform onlineTeam FPS (Vista + 360 users head to head.) The shadowrun team said from their experience that it all comes down to how you tweak the controls, and that the controller group had no problem keeping up with the KB/Mouse people. Shadowrun is about as apples to apples as you are gonna get in this comparison.
    • mrmayor92, on 09/07/2008, -2/+1serious digg is serious
    • th3heretic, on 09/07/2008, -0/+29800gtx, $200 w/ cod 4, yea, ***** gets cheaper remember?
  • PlattiJ, on 09/07/2008, -6/+9It makes sense for developers to release games on consoles rather than just PC's. I'm sure PC game piracy had a huge impact on sales. Afterall it is a business.
    • LoveWidescreen, on 09/07/2008, -4/+13You apparently need to read up on Stardock and other game companies who've said that they prefer to focus on making games that people actually want to BUY. Stardock refuses to use copy protection as well, and they've made millions of dollars on their games because they focus on their potential customers as that -- "potential customers".

      Unfortunately, you're viewing it from the same point of view as companies like EA and Ubisoft: fear the pirates first, favor the customer later. They unfortunately view their "potential customers" as "potential pirates" which I personally find offensive, as do many gamers.
      • h4mx0r, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7Not just offensive, but a mega hassle mind you.

        Assuming the game is fairly bug free, the DRM ends up causing new problems that end up being worse than potential bugs :(
      • frazw, on 09/07/2008, -2/+1Not to mention the fact that the majority of people think that artists should be rewarded for their work.
    • Radan, on 09/07/2008, -4/+6I completely agree with you. Say what you want about piracy, but it has undoubtedly hurt the game industry. The original Xbox is a perfect example of what may happen to a platform if the piracy gets out of hand.
    • Brandoskey, on 09/07/2008, -4/+2game devs want you to think piracey is some huge problem, fact of the matter it isn't. people who always pirate are always going to pirate no matter what the games cost or what system they're on.

      there are casual pirates who may do it just because they can't afford the game, but even that's a cop out, if you can afford the system you can afford the games.

      all the drm in pc games makes piracey legitimately easier to deal with, it can be a bigger pain getting your paid for copy to run than the pirated version these days.
    • Kanten, on 09/07/2008, -2/+15Tell that to Valve and Blizzard. People pay for QUALITY. Companies like Crytek and Epic whine that 'piracy is killing our sales' after releasing subpar products/tech demos like Crysis and UT3.

      Valve and Blizzard take two very important goals in mind:

      1. Put out a quality product.
      2. Make said product easily accessible for a wide variety of system specs.

      Consoles are just easier for luring blind buyers into shelling out money for shovelware. If more developers would shift to centralized platforms like Steam piracy would drop significantly.
      • Sethbacca, on 09/07/2008, -4/+5Calling console gamers blind buyers is about the most retarded thing I have ever read on digg. Seriously. I have been a hardcore gamer for the last 21 years, and am calling you out as a jackass. PC gaming as an open platform allows anyone to develop for it (obviously whoever has the ability of course), and has WAAAAY more shovelware for it than any console could ever dream of having.

        That being said I have a gaming pc that was really high end 2 years ago, as well as the latest generation of consoles, and the consoles eat the majority of my gaming time. The pc is pretty much used for Team Fortress 2 these days.
    • seraph582, on 09/07/2008, -1/+8as the owner of a chipset-modded wii, a firmware-modded XB360, and an R4 for my DS, I scoff at thee heartily.
  • xcpleprechaun, on 09/07/2008, -5/+6My beef with having several gaming platforms is that when games are made, they sometimes are not compatible with all systems. They should just focus on one platform (PC for instance) and make games such that they don't require people to upgrade their specs all the time. Albeit there may be some personal preference for having a console, but really, what can you do on a console that would be able to be done on a PC?
    • robzthird, on 09/07/2008, -8/+5Couch and big tv?
      • Brandoskey, on 09/07/2008, -0/+8pc's can be hooked up to tv's and played from the couch, did you just step out of the Delorean or what?
      • BRODEL, on 09/07/2008, -5/+2Yes, you CAN.. but so what? You're going to either string cables across the floor to your TV tray in front of the couch for the mouse and keyboard too? Yes there are wireless mice and keyboards, but I haven't seen any that had decent response times for gaming.

        Next you invite a friend over and you both want to play.. can't hook up TWO keyboard and mice combos to the same PC so you can both play. Are you going to send him back to his house so you can meet up in a game online?
      • DarkLaughingMan, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3You can also use controllers if you'd like..
      • ChildeRoland420, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1@robzthird,

        Then suddenly you lose the use of that computer at your desk. Sure, you could still browse the web on your TV, but then you lose resolution and readability, plus someone can't watch TV while your using the computer.
      • Brandoskey, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1buy a Small Form Factor PC

        also, response times on wireless mice and keyboards are no worse than response times on wireless controllers
      • Kanten, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2@BRODEL

        Wireless like...ALL of the current consoles?
      • ScionX, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3@ brodel

        I've used nothing but wireless mice/kb for the past 2 yrs or so.
        Maybe either your using some horrible equipment or just looking for an excuse for being raped online?
    • brianara3, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7... You can do that with a PC
  • scabbers, on 09/07/2008, -2/+29If you read the article to the end, he's talking about ***** micropayments.
    • Raian, on 09/07/2008, -3/+4The guy needs to stick to what he is best at... which he is not all that good at-- or become an economist and get out of making games altogether. When he becomes an economist he will realize no sane person wants to put even $2 in to a video game after they've bought it.
    • quasipolymath, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Right! Lanning: "What's wrong with consoles is that they don't have a place where, instead of buying games from a store for $60, you can download games. I'm thinking this should cost around $6 to $15 max. A 'live arcade', if you will. Later, you could customize your games with 'downloadable content'. It would be revolutionary. Too bad none of them have this already."
      • xB4R7x, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1have you heard of the 360 marketplace?
  • ChuckDees, on 09/07/2008, -9/+47Can it run Crysis?
    But no really, that is the issue.
    Not everyone has a PC with the same hardware specs.
    So people will either be left out.
    Or have to upgrade.
    A console gets rid of the guessing on hardware specs for most people.
    • FireSlash, on 09/07/2008, -2/+21No, Crysis is the problem. Crysis runs on a painfully small fraction of hardware. Games like Crysis force PC users to look at the machine they built last week and wonder why one new game suddenly rapes it. The cost:benefit ratio is skewed too far to make gaming PCs viable when games like Crysis hit.

      Developers need to get in the habit of writing their games to be scalable. Look at the Unreal Engine. Time and time again Epic has build an engine, and games for it that will run in just about any machine built in the last 5 years as long as it has a graphics card, yet still look good on the latest cutting edge beast.

      Or the alternate approach, World of Warcraft, which will run on just about anything that happens to still boot. You can't tell me WoW's graphics deter people from playing it, seeing as it's more or less the most successful game ever.

      The problem isn't consoles; the problem is the PC game developers who constantly feel the need to write games like Crysis which sit back and mock PC users for not owning expensive enough hardware to run it. Crysis could have been easily written to scale much better with algorithms to reduce ground clutter, offering lower res textures, and more aggressive LOD mesh systems; but Crytek was too busy drooling over the 5000 blades of waving grass they just added to care.
      • cloak419, on 09/07/2008, -4/+4You can turn down the graphics in Crysis if it runs too slow in the options, wait you can't you do that on the 360?
      • FoxOrian, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4PC games have been doing that sort of graphics pushing for as long as I can remember building computers.
        About a good ten or so years ago, I remmeber when Ultima IX: Ascension came out and the computer I had then absolutely chugged in the game at a whopping 800x600 resolution. When that game came out, I don't think anyone could run it as it was truly intended, much like quite a few modern games today.
        What's great about old games like that though, I can just install it on a laptop with only an Intel integrated graphics chip and it'll chew through it flawlessly. I can't currently imagine running something like Crysis near perfectly on simple budget hardware like that in the near future, but some day it'll happen.
    • seraph582, on 09/07/2008, -2/+4As someone said earlier: "did you just step out of the delorean?" The video card I bought a year ago for $200, which can now be bought for around $100 or less if you get a rebate, can run it maxed @ 1920x1200
    • carlosos, on 09/08/2008, -2/+1You mean you can't play Criyis on a 5 year old PC like you can't play GTA4 on a 5 year old console? But you can play Crysis on a 3 year old PC like you can play GTA4 on a 3 year old console. Isn't that amazing?
  • Inohavehalos, on 09/07/2008, -18/+11I actually enjoy consoles because FPSer's aren't rediculously hard--I don't have to worry about some guy in a 500$ chair with nacho cheese stains on his oversized shirt (he wears to look skinnier) with the mouse reflex of a humming bird killing me every 1 second I respawn.

    to put it short: you can be -too good- at computer games. Console FPS have thumbsticks to make aiming a harder challenge.
    • MunkeyPirate, on 09/07/2008, -2/+19Here's a solution to PC gaming...
      GET BETTER don't cripple your opponents.
    • twiztidsinz, on 09/07/2008, -5/+6Guess what...
      Ever since the PS2 and XBox, you've been able to add a Mouse/Keyboard to play FPS' on consoles.
      • Memnochxx, on 09/07/2008, -3/+7No you can't.
      • twiztidsinz, on 09/07/2008, -3/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartJoy_Frag SmartJoy Frag
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Jump to: navigation, search

        SmartJoy Frag is a product produced by SmartJoy which allows mouse and keyboard input (a popular method of playing first-person shooter games) to be used with console games [1]. Separate versions are available for the Xbox and PlayStation 2 systems, with presets for each console's most prominent first-person shooter games [2].

        Don't want to trust Wikipedia? http://gear.ign.com/articles/558/558944p1.html
      • h4mx0r, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4Some games I believe you can. Unreal Tournament 3's PS3 version (not sure about 360) has keyboard/mouse support I believe, but theres something about the game that makes certain dodge jumping harder than it is on the PC.
      • Inohavehalos, on 09/07/2008, -5/+2You can't play halo or cod4 on xbox360 with a mouse

        thats modding, and you WILL get banned for it.
      • Huzsar, on 09/07/2008, -2/+2Sure you can add Mouse/Keyboard but there are practically no games that actually support it. I can only think of one game that actually does on current gen consoles and its UT3 on PS3. Could you even name another one?
      • twiztidsinz, on 09/07/2008, -4/+3@Inohavehalos: Do you even know what a "mod" is? I highly doubt it since you think that the above would be one. There is ZERO difference between doing this and using a 3rd party controller from, lets say, MadCatz.

        @Huzsar: Bother to read much?
        "with presets for each console's most prominent first-person shooter games"
        I haven't done this with Halo 3 (game didn't interest me nearly as much as the others had), but I know people who have used a keyboard/mouse. Though I cannot see it -NOT- working, it's just an input device much like your controller.
      • Huzsar, on 09/07/2008, -2/+0@twiztidsinz
        Sorry I did not catch your comment on theSmartJoy Frag device before I submitted. So you are right you can play with mouse and keyboard. I am not sure how well it behaves thou, from the review you linked it looks like it depends on the game, since it has to simulate gamepad movement with a m/k. Still I think its preferable to have a official m/k support.
      • ExRe, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2The SmartJoy Frag sucks and is very expensive. Calling that KB/M support is very inaccurate.
    • Brandoskey, on 09/07/2008, -3/+10if you can't handle PC fps's maybe Barbie Horse Adventures is the game for you?
    • vtnerd, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6lmao - The console developers gave you worse controls and you are thanking them and claiming it was done intentionally to make it more of a challenge? Give me a ***** break.

      Consoles have thumbsticks because they wanted you to have something you could hold in your hands without the need for a desk or table - that's all there is to it, it's not some magnificent scheme to balance out skill in console FPS games.

      I don't think consoles suck and I actually own a Wii, but I do my FPS gaming on my PC where things are far, far superior to the console.
      • Tahiri, on 09/07/2008, -3/+1http://games.gearlive.com/playfeed/article/bungies ...

        Bungie’s latest Humpday event had members of the Halo 2 Vista development team put their mouse and keyboard skills up against the Bungie Community Team’s gamepad talents. Of course, the Bungie Community Team swept all three rounds, and most weren’t very close. While disparities in overall skill levels make this hardly a scientific test, it seems clear that the gamepad isn’t the handicap that mouse and keyboard gamers would have you believe.
    • seraph582, on 09/07/2008, -2/+5typical console gamer response. "LIMITS ARE FEATURES!"

      We get it - the hardware won't change and everyone's is the same. That's a limit, not a feature. Same with your limit/feature of (retarded) thumbsticks.
      • Inohavehalos, on 09/07/2008, -5/+3More evidence of digg fanboyism to PC games.
      • Brandoskey, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1in soviet russia everyone equals YOU!
  • truspect0r, on 09/07/2008, -15/+39lol who cares what an Oddword Developer says.
    • dazparkour, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1Yeah - OH NO! More potential customers! Woe is me.
  • xcpleprechaun, on 09/07/2008, -4/+17In defense of consoles, you get a complete gaming machine for a few hundred bucks and it's good for several years.
    • punkcat, on 09/07/2008, -4/+4and u can play it on your couch
    • brianara3, on 09/07/2008, -3/+6Stop bringing up the couch thing... you can do that with any modern PC just as easily. Hell, most of them have an HDMI output now.
    • seraph582, on 09/07/2008, -6/+1that's a limit, not a feature.
    • ExRe, on 09/07/2008, -2/+3In defense of PC, you can get a complete gaming machine for under $600 (including the OS) which can be used for more than just playing games and it can be used for just as long, if not longer than any console. After it's useful life you can also set it up as a HTPC or a server.
    • Shaflugi, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2Good for several years.. except if you own a 360.
    • vagrantradio, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1I play games on my pc whilst sitting on a couch, big f*ing deal...
  • unique172, on 09/07/2008, -6/+14This is retarded. While I've heard from several places that the PS3 is a bitch to code for, I've bought several games online at his magic $5 price point. Quit whining about extra work.

    (disclaimer) I have a PS3 and I just sold my PC to get a Mac. Bad move?
    • twiztidsinz, on 09/07/2008, -2/+13"(disclaimer) I have a PS3 and I just sold my PC to get a Mac. Bad move?"
      Somewhere, Nelson Muntz laughed and doesn't know exactly why.
    • 1legend, on 09/07/2008, -1/+10good luck with the mac
      • unique172, on 09/07/2008, -2/+1So far I couldn't be happier. The only thing I really miss is Picasa.
    • zaffir, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1If you want to eek out every last drop of power from the PS3, yeah, fully utilizing the SPUs on the Cell can be difficult. How many "magic $5" games are so bleeding edge that they need to do that? Not many. Not even all the big boys need to do it. The Resistance: Fall of Man devs acknowledge that they were not truly flexing the muscle of the Cell processor in that game.
    • seraph582, on 09/07/2008, -4/+5dugg because you asked.

      Answer - you're gonna dump a lot of money into the mac vs a regular pc distributors' comparable, but that's not the real kicker. The real kicker is that you'll be booting into windows on the thing to play real games. It's cool that you have the option to run OSX and/or Windows, but it's a pretty pricey gimmick. Also, good luck upgrading the thing over the years.
      • unique172, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1The thing is, I won't upgrade it, I'll just sell it and buy a new one (that's not strictly true...I put 4gb of ram in it for $100). I tried to sell a used PC and had trouble GIVING it away. Used Macs (esp. laptops) usually go for 80% of the original value. Try finding a Macbook for under $900...it's difficult. Even the old G4 iBooks regularly go for $600 on Ebay.
  • doshindude, on 09/07/2008, -15/+10Buried for being retarded. PC gaming is MUCH more expensive (a new console is $300-$600 while a decent PC upgrade can be over $1000. Not everyone is a rich bastard) and less worthwhile than console gaming. Not only that, you lose the social aspect of gaming by staying in a room alone playing games. Sure you've got online, but you're not physically interacting with them other than just talking on the mic.
    • fuzzynyanko, on 09/07/2008, -3/+12Actually, you can get a pretty decent gaming rig for $600. You can even get a budget rig for around $450
    • gradivus, on 09/07/2008, -3/+12Quad core, 4gig mem, radeon4850, about $400. Thats a top of the line upgrade for less than a new console. Stop pushing this sad and tired "$11billion upgrade to barely run a 10 year old game and you have to upgrade every 30 seconds" *****.
      • Sethbacca, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2actually that depends on your current system whether that upgrade is a mere 400$. Most people upgrading will likely need a new motherboard, and possibly different ram. So toss another 150$ minimum on your price.
      • gradivus, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Motherboard $60. So maybe $460, and thats for top of the line(not bleeding edge, but close enough to run even the newest games on max).
      • PueSi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1You rarely need to change the CPU (for gaming) so why would you need to change your Motherboard?
        PC games are GPU intensive, they're rarely CPU heavy.

        You don't need an E8400 to run Crysis, you need a 8800GT+.
    • Brandoskey, on 09/07/2008, -4/+6what makes console gaming more social? just because others are in the room with you doesn't make it more social, your logic is flawed therefore your argument is bunk.

      pc upgrades are not 1000 dollars, i've never spent anywhere near that on an upgrade,m you're getting ripped off BAD.

      the most i've ever spent upgrading is around 600 bucks, and that was for a total system overhaul, something i only do every few years. the rest of the time i can upgrade once a year for maybe 200-300 buck

      i'm more hardcore about upgrades than most though, you can easily get away with spending 2-300 every 2-3 years to play the latest games. the main upgrade with pc's these days is the video card, cpu's are so fast they're practically out of the picture right now, ram is another one, but hell you can get 4gb of ddr2 for under 100 bucks now, that will easily last you 3 years or more, so again what is your excuse now?

      if we're gonna call the average pc upgrade 1000 dollars, then you have to thrown in the price of the tv for the console, so the console is 600 bucks plus another 1000 for the tv.

      you assume the pc gamer doesn't already have a pc, so you must also assume the console gamer doesn't have a tv.
    • kukiweed, on 09/07/2008, -3/+4My rig is almost 2 years old and was never high end. A month ago I added a $150 HD4850 card and I can play Crysis with all high settings on 1680*1050, Grid with alll high and 24xAA, the same for TF2 or CoD4. How much AA can consoles handle?.. 2x? I heard PS3 don't even have AA for Grid and it looks awfull, while I can enjoy it with full 24xAA just with a $150 upgrade.

      Oh, and PC games are way cheaper at launch than console games, ~20$ usually.
      Let's say you buy 10 games a year; if you're on a console you spend 200 bucks more than PC gamers, and in the 5 year lifespan of a console it amounts to $1000. So.. How is console gaming cheaper?
    • Katana314, on 09/07/2008, -5/+5LET'S PLAY COMPARE THE COSTS!

      A normal gaming PC. The actual box pre-made from Alienware, can cost you say...$1200! It won't play Crysis on max, but it's great for TF2. But, wooh! That price tag!

      Now, for the Xbox 360. The actual set will cost you maybe, $250-$300 depending on where you get it. Now, the HD TV will-
      You: Hold on! HD TV? I already have that!
      Now hold on little Billy! You're saying you already own a high-definition color television?
      You: Thaaat's right!
      Well, that means we need to change some of the rules, here! You see, our current rules say we're building our gaming set from the ground up. You're looking at an empty room, and you're making it your gaming playhouse!
      You: But EVERYONE has a TV! That's just not fair!
      Little Billy is right. EVERYONE has a TV in the wonderful world of America! But can you think of some other household items that every mother-loving patriot has?
      You: A...fridge?
      Good...
      You: A phone?
      Keep going!
      You: A...front door?
      How about this, Billy? EVERYONE reading this comment owns a COMPUTER!
      You: Well, dur! But only like, a few of those can run games!
      Little Billy, didn't you know? Unless you've moved over to the dark side, you can supe up your computer into a Gaming Hot-Rod!
      You: What do you mean, Mr. Ominous Voice?
      I mean, if you were to go to Newegg.com, buy a new graphics card, and slot it into your computer, you'll now have a PC that can frag all the noobs you want!
      You: Wow! That's so cool! But...that still costs like $500, right?
      Take a close look at that site I mentioned, Billy. The 8800GT can run plenty of new games. How much does it cost?
      You: $250? Wow! That's just the same as the price of the Xbox!
      And don't forget! This is only the expensive part! The PC is home to $10-cheaper games, games as cheap as $10, free online multiplayer, and much, much more!
      You: Thanks, Mr....what was your name again?

      You: Hello?
      Roommate: QUIT TALKING TO YOURSELF.
    • Nextrix, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3Actually I can't see how consoles are any different now these days for playing by yourself in the same situation. How many games now are supporting 2-4 players, well besides the Wii. The Wii is the only console that is bringing back the old days of playing on a console with many friends in the same room. Everyone else is trying to rely on multiplayer abilities to remove the need for this support in the game. Don't get me wrong, there are some good console games that support it, but these past years all I have seen from console is single person game play.

      And for the argument for price, you are right. I am personally a PC game more than on all my consoles, but that is only because I can do more on my PC than my consoles can give me. The PC rig is very expensive (it doesn't have to be), but I look at it like this. In this world you work very hard to make lots of money, some go out and buy every expensive things to enjoy all the hard work they have done, some buy $60k+ cars, some buy large entertainment systems to play there consoles systems on, me I like spending it on my PC cause I use it to do more things that just play games, I use it for work.
  • Truckondo, on 09/07/2008, -15/+17I like playing my on big screen sitting on a couch. PC gaming is now dead to me.
    • fuzzynyanko, on 09/07/2008, -3/+15A lot of nVidia and ATI cards come with DVI connectors, and you can get DVI to HDMI adapters. Some big screens even have a VGA port
      • ExRe, on 09/07/2008, -0/+8A lot? Which cards don't come with a DVI connector? I rarely see a card without dual DVI connectors anymore.
    • gradivus, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6Most motherboards have an HDMI output now, as well as most video cards.
    • dibdidit, on 09/07/2008, -5/+9a couch, a big TV and putting a game disc in and play it 30 second later, that quality gaming!

      not having to spend an arm and a leg on HDMI cables to hook you PC to your TV, that's priceless!
    • gradivus, on 09/07/2008, -4/+5$20 is an arm and a leg now(assuming the motherboard didnt already come with them)? Considering the TV cost at least $300 for tiny crappy one, its not that expensive(never mind that the 360 and ps3 dont come with hdmi either).
    • Pandakopanda, on 09/07/2008, -1/+5Most PC's are not placed in the living room (of course you could buy a second PC for the living room, but that would defeat the whole price argument). I think PC's are much more for the 'hardcore' gamers (they will want to play alone in their room anyway), console gaming is much more a social/family experience.

      I like my console, just relaxing on the couch and playing on my big-ass tv. No worries about upgrading and what graphics card to buy. I just get a new console every few years and I'll know that the games I buy will look and feel on my console exactly the same as they do with other people that have the same console.
      • gradivus, on 09/07/2008, -3/+3I am constantly wringing my hands in worry about when to buy a new graphics card. I buy one every few weeks for some reason and the worry is just killing me. Can you imagine the horror of spending 10 whole minutes on a website picking out a graphics card every 2 years at most? Excuse me I have to go, my 360 just bricked itself and the game I want doesnt come on the ps3.
    • seraph582, on 09/07/2008, -6/+13Funny, when I'm done typing this message, I'll go back to playing TF2 on my big screen in 1080p (not rendered in 720 and upscaled like the XB360 does, no, real 1080p) and sitting on a couch in the middle of my 5.1 system.

      Consoles are a limitation to gaming in hardware, software, and budget. Get with the program, people.
  • Ne007, on 09/07/2008, -2/+8His whole argument makes no sense.

    The system of micropayments could and IS being used on some level with the newest consoles..at least on xbox360.

    There's nothing stopping the console industry from using micropayments and if it were as profitable or even more so, then they would or should use it.
    • Katana314, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1Well, yeah, but that's AFTER the purchase of a $50-$60 game. You're spending an amount that's no less than absurd on a single game.
      • drqshadow, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1If you've never used the XBL marketplace or Sony store to purchase a game (not DLC) for $5, you probably shouldn't enter into the argument.
  • AaronD12, on 09/07/2008, -15/+10Somebody call the waaaaaaaahmbulance. Just because he doesn't want to learn how to program a new console or a new instruction set/endian doesn't mean that everyone has to suffer.

    I would rather not have to spend $1000+ on a gaming rig that gives me the quality of games that I can get on a $199 XBOX360. Unless you're into pirating games, I can't see the point of spending so much on a PC just for games. (I put $1000 because I didn't want this thread to become a flamewar about how you can run Crysis at over 9000 FPS on a $250 Wal*Mart PC.)
    • Layne, on 09/07/2008, -2/+4Read the article dumbass. His main complaint is increased development cost. This includes the ridiculous fees developers have to pay to the console manufacturers.
    • RNEMESiS42, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6I don't understand why everyone in the comments keeps saying that a rig will cost them $1000.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 09/07/2008, -0/+10If you spend "$1000+" on a computer, even for games, you're an idiot.

      You can easily build a $800-$500 pc that will most essentially anything you want, and if you have a system you can upgrade doing so is far cheaper than buying a console.

      Not to mention that gaming system will be powerful enough to do actual, you know, work. PS3 is nice all, but it won't run Photoshop or Avid no will it?

      Case and point, PCs are less expensive than you claim, and have far greater functionality that makes spending a little extra worth it.
      • Bersy, on 09/07/2008, -2/+0An "idiot"? Wow, get your head out of your ass.

        There are plenty of industries that demand more than what your ***** 5-800 dollar PC could ever hope to handle. Your average 3d pipeline for instance. A FireGL or Quadro alone can set you back well over a grand. Video and audio work are also demanding especially when you have to stream many tracks from disk, high RPM drives don't come cheap. Not to mention a proper multi input ASIO sound card. Oh, ever hear of silent cases and drive enclosures? There are numerous things to think about depending on what you work with and how serious you are about it. All in all, a smartly balanced work system even without any of these things is generally worth whatever it costs. So you might not want to refrain from making further idiotic blanket statements.

        Oh, and if you're wondering, no I am not "angry" that I spent a lot and trying to justify it, in fact I did spend less than 1000 on the base of my current system, which has lasted me since 2004. I have spent further money on upgrades and addons, but considering that is over a 4-5 year stretch I'd say that's pretty good. So I am not arguing that you can't build a great pc for cheap. But my next purchase in about a month, I plan to go all out...
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Okay, well, I'm sure "plenty of industries" demand more than a Core 2 Quad/Duo and HD4850/4870, but we're talking about consumer PCs for GAMING here. Right now that system will play games great, and spending much more get's really foolish really fast.

        I've heard of plenty silent cases and drive enclosures, but just like the ASIO sound card, high RPM drives, and Quadro cards you mentioned they don't even make sense for a home gaming PC. Considering that you shouldn't even have games installed on something like a video editing station, I think it's you who needs to "get you head out of your ass" and realize you were wrong.

        The fact is you can build a decent to damn good gaming system for $500-800 dollars. You've said nothing to refute that. I don't even understand how you justified that whole irrelevant rant in your head, but whatever.
    • brianara3, on 09/07/2008, -4/+2So... I'm an idiot eh. Maybe I like a FAST computer that will not be useless in 2-3 years. Not to mention I have tons of storage space for anything I want to save.
    • ExRe, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2$1,000 gaming rig?

      I just bought a quad core desktop with 4 gigs of ram and an 8800 for about $600 for everything I needed. I also got a 24" LCD to go with it for about $350.
      • brianara3, on 09/07/2008, -2/+1Congrats... that is $950... pretty damn close to $1000 eh?

        Quad core... means nothing, you can get a bottom of the line QC for $100 top end will set you back 1,500 bucks for just a CPU
        Same with 8800... 8800GS's are about $90... get an 8800 GT and you got a $200 card.

        Also, a "24 inch LCD" can be a crap Acer... or a nice Dell UltraSharp (BIG price diff.)
      • FearLess77, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3well, I don't include my xbox price + tv do I?

        his computer costs 600.
      • PueSi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1And you don't even need a quad core for gaming, buying a $1500 Quad for gaming (or any Intel Extreme processor) is completely stupid.
  • sting87, on 09/07/2008, -4/+6I play nothing on my computer except Orange Box and WoW. If I can get it on a console I will over a PC because I know it will run at a decent framerate constantly and not require me to update drivers or buy more ram or a newer GPU
    • Doggalina, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6Then why do you have Orange Box on PC as opposed to PS3 or 360?
      • Jaablaze, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3because Orange Box on console kinda blows. Especially if you like TF2, to my knowledge there have been no updates to the console versions.
      • JollyDumple, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3There are going to be updates on xbox live, but you have to pay like $10.
      • roflcpt3r, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2Which is why PC is better. Consoles are a series of walled gardens
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4Wait, so you're already playing the games you want fine, but you're still complaining?
  • dood, on 09/07/2008, -1/+14Surely Lorne Lanning is familiar with Xbox Live Arcade games. There are dozens of affordable titles available where the gamer can easily demo them or purchase them immediately.
    • blacketj, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6Don't forget Playstation Network. Many quality titles at the $9.99 price point.
      And the Wii now has Wii-Ware, which is the same concept.

      What Lorne is asking for already exists with all three current consoles. I don't get what he is complaining about
    • ExRe, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Probably, but browsing games on Xbox live sucks ass. It is extremely difficult to find anything.
      • quasipolymath, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1I have to say. Between my Xbox and PS3, I play more games on the Xbox, but I much prefer browsing PSN for content. The Xbox dashboard is getting a facelift soon, though.
  • MunkeyPirate, on 09/07/2008, -2/+4Ok consoles can be a problem if you want to put a game out on multiple fronts, however, I would be curious as to the development cost of Crisis compared to Metal Gear Solid 4. Are consoles really a problem? Or is Lorn just a whiny bitch who wants to be able to sell to every gamer and not have to invest in multiple developments?

  • theantix, on 09/07/2008, -5/+7Consoles may be more problematic than developers, but for consumers they are an incredible blessing. With consoles you don't have to worry about your video card is powerful enough to run the game... it just works. No messing with weirdly functioning DRM, or with games that weren't properly tested with your specific hardware configuration. The only drawback so far is the relative lack of games in certain genres, but that too seems to be changing.

    For me the most delightful bonus is that I don't have to keep a windows PC around, so I don't have to deal with any of that burden any more.
    • Nossie, on 09/07/2008, -3/+6"you don't have to worry about your video card is powerful enough to run the game... it just works. "

      that is because HINT: the graphics don't get any better.. and will never get much better!

      Seriously, dont you remember the PSX days? people used to gloat at me for my pentium P60 and how my version of themepark didnt have 'interactive rides' and how their playstation was the same megahertz as my PC...

      How long did that last for? How long was it before the PS games were missing all the content and extras the PCs had ONCE again?

      The one thing that I admit is gimping the PC gaming industry is that the majority of games right now are designed for the consoles (biggest audience 360 especially ) and then ported back to the PC. The reason the consoles are not missing the extras from the PC version is simply because they were never there to begin with.

      Yes I will be the first to say the consoles have some advantage.... over time developers can optimize and take advantage of all the twerks and issues ... (look at the snes era) but the reality is you also have another console to port for and that just means the PS3 (a more powerful but less popular console) is getting gimped retarded xbox 360 ports.

      With the expected lifespan of consoles being so high (the ps3 being 9 years) I doubt this will last much longer before developers are pushing brickwalls and cutting corners and then eventually moving back to the PC as the more advantaged system. Everyone is so happy now but just wait when your 8 year old console cant play the latest PC games (or looks ***** in comparison) ... then the tables will turn.

      What comes around goes around and in the PCs case this has happened at least twice before.

      My estimate is you'd have to buy a new $800 console every 4 - 5 years to keep up with PCs and that simply will not happen. Sony have learned that lesson ... to the extent we aren't even sure IF there will be a PS4.

      Will be nice to watch, personally however I quite prefer to keep the 12 year old retards on their xbox ports.. one less person to tell STFU to when they are screaming down their mic that they got teabagged. (that btw is not an attack on console owners personally .. even you know the ones I'm talking about)
      • kingmanic, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1We're into the plateau of diminishing returns for graphics. You now get more pay off with being clever than throwing computing power at the problem. Even the most impressive graphics engine would look inferior without great art design and a believable world. And those two things are platform agnostic. So the graphics edge more or less evaporated in the last generation. PC gaming simply isn't that much more sophisticated then what could be done on the 360/PS3. More horsepower only allows more complicated scenes, and clever design trumps hardware horsepower.

        I'll always have a decent PC rigg, for blizzard. RTS's and Loot grinders just seem better on PC.
      • Nossie, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2that's why I have a wii... I think Nintendo believe the wii has a 6 year life... Not sure how they will play it out but any new console that comes out in the next 3 years will be vastly superior to the PS3 no matter how little it costs... that alone would cannonball the dreams of Sony.

        As far as graphics go you might be right... but the particle physics of objects just simply cant be processed on consoles right now and I can just see you installing a new gfx card with a particle specific gpu (or integrated into the same pipeline for that matter) in your little console box.

        Within 2 years the latest PC games will have realistic micro physics in elements and textures which will blow your mind, and that will add to the gameplay itself.

        Then you have AI ... it doesn't matter how much graphics you throw at a game if the AI sucks rocks who cares? AI is another area where consoles fall on their arse. (civ, simcity, spore, etc)

        One barrier has just been crossed (online gaming), consoles only have another 20 to go.
    • Tahiri, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2Actually graphics on consoles do get better as time goes on.
      • Nossie, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1yes they do... hence the quote

        ".. and will never get *much* better!"

        and

        "Yes I will be the first to say the consoles have some advantage.... over time developers can optimize and take advantage of all the twerks and issues ... (look at the snes era)"

        Look at r-type for the snes... so graphically intensive it slowed the whole thing down to a crawl at some points.... eventually the developers got the balance right and started pulling back on things and adding more things here and there until the games for the snes near the end were of a very high quality standard. A good on going example of that right now is the iphone App store... a plethora of drivel at the beginning is now starting to grow quite good... the developers are getting used tot he sdk... all the twerks are being tweaked and in time it will all be sorted out....

        Its obvious that most sequels on consoles have better graphics than their predecessors even on the same base console

        BUT - that is quite different from adding in a new gpu to a console... the main reason addons never take off is that if everyone doesn't buy it or it doesn't come bundled for free then the majority of gamers will never be able to take advantage of it so fewer titles will be produced.

        The only example of an after market upgrade that I can think of that ever became truly successful was the PS dual shock controller and that was backwards compatible (and we wont ponder on where they got the idea from)

        So yes, graphics can become BETTER optimized... but you wont be able to easily just add in features that never existed in the first place.
  • statrick, on 09/07/2008, -2/+9my one next gen console is a piece of *****, it worked for about 4 months before it ***** the bed for no apparent reason. guess which one i have
    • sting87, on 09/07/2008, -3/+4Playstation 3. Blew up a friends SONY HDTV and they wouldn't repair it.
      • kingmanic, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6Blew up a HDTV? Explain how that could happen? Did the HDMI red light? Power surge? TV was a rear projection and the bulb was going anyway? Was the TV a rear projection which was old and didn't support that much motion? I'm not sure how any console could cause a TV to "blow up".
    • 1legend, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6oooh oooh pick me! pick me! the 360 am i right? am i right?
    • ncnavguy, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2One of those Ngage phones?
    • ExRe, on 09/07/2008, -2/+3Your next-gen console?

      Which one did you get, a PS4 or a Xbox 720?
  • indianajosh, on 09/07/2008, -1/+12Here we go, every time PC gaming is brought up everyone has to bash it and pretend that consoles are the same as PCs and have all the PC games.
  • OfNumbers, on 09/07/2008, -6/+2Oddword huh. Never played that one.
  • jaythewise, on 09/07/2008, -2/+21Will games like civ4 and total war be on console? Nope, ill stick with my PC for now...

    (note: civ rev is not civ4 nor anywhere close to it. A good reason why I still need my PC)
    • cheule, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3But honestly, they could be. Come on, you think people couldn't plug a mouse into a console?
    • dood, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Civilization Revolution is pretty awesome on the DS. I think I'd expect more on a full-size console, though.

      That said, I think Civ 4 could certainly be made on a console. Why couldn't it?
    • quasipolymath, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3It seems like Civ Rev would be a great way to introduce people to civ. As a life-long civ player, however, it seemed neutered, visually cluttered and disappointing.
    • jaythewise, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0Its kinda tough using a mouse on your coffee table...

      The ole' plug in a mouse into your console arguement is getting really old.

      Consoles are great for certain games but they are really lacking in the strategy genre. Really, really lacking.

      I remember loving the old KOEI games (romance of the three kingdoms) on my nintendo and then being pissed off when they were so much better on my old PC.
  • frontporsche, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1"...and buying a game for $5 and then buying additional content for that game, "

    I wonder, why don't console game producers do something like this? Maybe start with 2 versions of a game; the $5 version has only 1 "level" (or whatever), and the $50 version has everything.
    • Cyber_Akuma,