Just was perusing Gamespot.com and reailzed that two game series that I am 
quite fond of, Rainbow Six and Call of Duty have sequels that look like they 
won't be available for the PC?

Rainbow Six Las Vegas so far looks like it is for X360 and PS3 only.

Call of Duty 3 is slated for, get this, the XBOX, X360, PS2, and PS3 but NOT 
for PC? WTF is up with that? If it out for the antiquated XBOX and PS2, why 
not the PC?

Just wondering what other titles in the future that will be hot sellers or 
sequels that won't be released for a PC? I'm not object to consoles, I just 
prefer PC games. One big reason is that I can't stand the controllers for 
any of the consoles, not to mention that I can update my PC to get better 
framerates and improved graphics if I decide to do so.

Boo to Activision and Ubisoft for this decision... 

Get used to it.

"HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VtadnU8WAY6JqkPZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Just was perusing Gamespot.com and reailzed that two game series that I am
> quite fond of, Rainbow Six and Call of Duty have sequels that look like
they
> won't be available for the PC?
>
> Rainbow Six Las Vegas so far looks like it is for X360 and PS3 only.
>
> Call of Duty 3 is slated for, get this, the XBOX, X360, PS2, and PS3 but
NOT
> for PC? WTF is up with that? If it out for the antiquated XBOX and PS2,
why
> not the PC?
>
> Just wondering what other titles in the future that will be hot sellers or
> sequels that won't be released for a PC? I'm not object to consoles, I
just
> prefer PC games. One big reason is that I can't stand the controllers for
> any of the consoles, not to mention that I can update my PC to get better
> framerates and improved graphics if I decide to do so.
>
> Boo to Activision and Ubisoft for this decision...
>
>

HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> Just was perusing Gamespot.com and reailzed that two game series that I am 
> quite fond of, Rainbow Six and Call of Duty have sequels that look like they 
> won't be available for the PC?
> 
> Rainbow Six Las Vegas so far looks like it is for X360 and PS3 only.
> 
> Call of Duty 3 is slated for, get this, the XBOX, X360, PS2, and PS3 but NOT 
> for PC? WTF is up with that? If it out for the antiquated XBOX and PS2, why 
> not the PC?
> 
> Just wondering what other titles in the future that will be hot sellers or 
> sequels that won't be released for a PC? I'm not object to consoles, I just 
> prefer PC games. One big reason is that I can't stand the controllers for 
> any of the consoles, not to mention that I can update my PC to get better 
> framerates and improved graphics if I decide to do so.
> 
> Boo to Activision and Ubisoft for this decision... 
> 
> 
When they port them to console they really dumb them down so I don't 
even want to see them on the PC as they are not the same games we loved.
I say boo too as all they care bout is making a buck and not quality 
games. If you have no love or the industry then you don't belong in it.

I think both of those games have worn out all there ideas in there PC 
versions and r just not needed and would not be well
received .
Mouse
@@@@ 

"Garrot" <no1@home.today> wrote in message 
news:e8tDg.381646$IK3.339069@pd7tw1no...
> HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>> Just was perusing Gamespot.com and reailzed that two game series that I 
>> am quite fond of, Rainbow Six and Call of Duty have sequels that look 
>> like they won't be available for the PC?
>>
>> Rainbow Six Las Vegas so far looks like it is for X360 and PS3 only.
>>
>> Call of Duty 3 is slated for, get this, the XBOX, X360, PS2, and PS3 but 
>> NOT for PC? WTF is up with that? If it out for the antiquated XBOX and 
>> PS2, why not the PC?
>>
>> Just wondering what other titles in the future that will be hot sellers 
>> or sequels that won't be released for a PC? I'm not object to consoles, I 
>> just prefer PC games. One big reason is that I can't stand the 
>> controllers for any of the consoles, not to mention that I can update my 
>> PC to get better framerates and improved graphics if I decide to do so.
>>
>> Boo to Activision and Ubisoft for this decision...
> When they port them to console they really dumb them down so I don't even 
> want to see them on the PC as they are not the same games we loved.
> I say boo too as all they care bout is making a buck and not quality 
> games. If you have no love or the industry then you don't belong in it.

Well, I like the Rainbow Six series, and Vegas sounds like a good premise. 
However, I would much rather see the port go the other way around of course. 
Bring it to the PC, make it as robust as possible, and then dumb it down for 
the consoles. Fine if you want to use the PC as a "beta" of sorts because it 
can always be patched much easier than on X360 or PS3. But once developed 
for a console first, there's no chance of it ever getting the due diligence 
and complexity it deserves for the PC.

Seems like I always get stuck with the short end of the technology curve. 
I've always had a thing for combat flight simulations, and that took a dive 
at the end of the 90's. I have always used a Palm device, and those are a 
dying breed. Now even a PC for gaming looks like it is going down the tubes. 
It'd be fine if consoles were a worthy replacement, but they're not! Not 
with this generation at least.

Maybe I'm just getting old, and find it harder to change with the times, but 
I think it is just the gaming industry looking for the quick buck and not 
looking at the future. Fine, but I hope it bites them in the ass! 

HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> Just was perusing Gamespot.com and reailzed that two game series that I am
> quite fond of, Rainbow Six and Call of Duty have sequels that look like they
> won't be available for the PC?
>
> Rainbow Six Las Vegas so far looks like it is for X360 and PS3 only.
>
> Call of Duty 3 is slated for, get this, the XBOX, X360, PS2, and PS3 but NOT
> for PC? WTF is up with that? If it out for the antiquated XBOX and PS2, why
> not the PC?
>
> Just wondering what other titles in the future that will be hot sellers or
> sequels that won't be released for a PC? I'm not object to consoles, I just
> prefer PC games. One big reason is that I can't stand the controllers for
> any of the consoles, not to mention that I can update my PC to get better
> framerates and improved graphics if I decide to do so.
>
> Boo to Activision and Ubisoft for this decision...

PC gaming is dying, my local gaming store which used to cater almost
exclusively for my PC gaming needs has now completely dropped selling
PC games in favour of consoles only.

I'm migrating to the 360 shortly and I suggest you all jump ship with
me!

<flightlessvacuum@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1155441079.978615.188450@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>> Just was perusing Gamespot.com and reailzed that two game series that I 
>> am
>> quite fond of, Rainbow Six and Call of Duty have sequels that look like 
>> they
>> won't be available for the PC?
>>
>> Rainbow Six Las Vegas so far looks like it is for X360 and PS3 only.
>>
>> Call of Duty 3 is slated for, get this, the XBOX, X360, PS2, and PS3 but 
>> NOT
>> for PC? WTF is up with that? If it out for the antiquated XBOX and PS2, 
>> why
>> not the PC?
>>
>> Just wondering what other titles in the future that will be hot sellers 
>> or
>> sequels that won't be released for a PC? I'm not object to consoles, I 
>> just
>> prefer PC games. One big reason is that I can't stand the controllers for
>> any of the consoles, not to mention that I can update my PC to get better
>> framerates and improved graphics if I decide to do so.
>>
>> Boo to Activision and Ubisoft for this decision...
>
> PC gaming is dying, my local gaming store which used to cater almost
> exclusively for my PC gaming needs has now completely dropped selling
> PC games in favour of consoles only.
>
> I'm migrating to the 360 shortly and I suggest you all jump ship with
> me!
>

Three things are preventing me.

(1) flight sims
(2) strategy games
(3) mouse/keyboard controller

Find a way to incorporate those and I'm sold! 

On 12 Aug 2006 20:51:20 -0700, flightlessvacuum@gmail.com wrote:

>PC gaming is dying, my local gaming store which used to cater almost

It's not PC gaming that is dying - it's "local gaming stores".  You can
get stuff online faster and cheaper.  Local stores cater to console stuff
for kids because kids don't have credit cards and can't order online as
easily.
-- 
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/

On 12 Aug 2006 20:51:20 -0700, flightlessvacuum@gmail.com wrote:


>PC gaming is dying, my local gaming store which used to cater almost
>exclusively for my PC gaming needs has now completely dropped selling
>PC games in favour of consoles only.
>
>I'm migrating to the 360 shortly and I suggest you all jump ship with
>me!

Until people stop using PCs, the PC Gaming industry will never die. It
may shrink significantly, but there will always be someone willing to
cater to a market of 100 million* home PCs. Because there's only so
long you can use Quicken before you gotta get a gaming fix. Now maybe
EA and Activision may decide to focus their attentions solely on
consoles, but so what. Most of the titles coming from the big
corporate publishers are carbon-copies of last year's games anyway.
Without the big publishers' yearly influxes of digital pablum, the
smaller publishers -who tend to make more original games- will get
more marketshare. 

So maybe I miss Call of Duty 3. Yeah, I probably would have enjoyed
it, but it's okay if I miss out on this one; I have Call of Duty 1 and
2 should I get a hankering for that sort of gameplay. The "death of PC
gaming" has been announced about as many times as the death of usenet;
I'm not particularly worried about either.




* yeah, I pulled that number out of my ass. Whatever. I'd personally
guess the number is much higher, but even if it is a ridiculously
small number like 20 million, it's still not the sort of market you
ignore. 

"Spalls Hurgenson" <yoinks@ebalu.com> wrote in message 
news:fkfud2tvq3dc6u6v6mg0i49ap6a9vktqk0@4ax.com...
> On 12 Aug 2006 20:51:20 -0700, flightlessvacuum@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>PC gaming is dying, my local gaming store which used to cater almost
>>exclusively for my PC gaming needs has now completely dropped selling
>>PC games in favour of consoles only.
>>
>>I'm migrating to the 360 shortly and I suggest you all jump ship with
>>me!
>
> Until people stop using PCs, the PC Gaming industry will never die. It
> may shrink significantly, but there will always be someone willing to
> cater to a market of 100 million* home PCs. Because there's only so
> long you can use Quicken before you gotta get a gaming fix. Now maybe
> EA and Activision may decide to focus their attentions solely on
> consoles, but so what. Most of the titles coming from the big
> corporate publishers are carbon-copies of last year's games anyway.
> Without the big publishers' yearly influxes of digital pablum, the
> smaller publishers -who tend to make more original games- will get
> more marketshare.
>
> So maybe I miss Call of Duty 3. Yeah, I probably would have enjoyed
> it, but it's okay if I miss out on this one; I have Call of Duty 1 and
> 2 should I get a hankering for that sort of gameplay. The "death of PC
> gaming" has been announced about as many times as the death of usenet;
> I'm not particularly worried about either.
>
>
>
>
> * yeah, I pulled that number out of my ass. Whatever. I'd personally
> guess the number is much higher, but even if it is a ridiculously
> small number like 20 million, it's still not the sort of market you
> ignore.
>

I'm not calling it the "death of PC gaming" but if big budget titles don't 
make it to the PC, then we're stuck with mostly smaller budget titles. This 
doesn't mean they will be awful per se, just won't get the attention to 
detail they deserve. As a flight sim fanatic I've had to deal with much 
smaller outfits compared with EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc, so I know what 
these smaller companies can do. They always have to cut corners and that can 
make a product a lot less substantial than what it could be.

I remember the early days of PC games where anyone with some knowledge of C 
programming could make a decent game. Heck, I even programmed a few simple 
games myself. Of course with all the hi res graphics, complex AI and 
physics, this not even a possibility any more. Even the lesser titles 
require decent manpower and more than just a home PC to program.

Also, PC's as we know it will probably change significantly over the next 
ten years. PC's and other electronics are being merged. The entertainment PC 
will become more of a merged home theater/gaming machine, leaving simpler 
and much smaller PC's for basic desktop work and internet. 

....And save game any where any time.
Mouse
@@@@ 

flightlessvacuum@gmail.com wrote:

> PC gaming is dying, my local gaming store which used to cater almost
> exclusively for my PC gaming needs has now completely dropped selling
> PC games in favour of consoles only.

Yea, I went to EB about two weeks ago and they moved all the PC games 
(except new ones) off the wall and onto a crappy rack that displays the 
games like a book shelf. I won't be shopping at EB for PC games anymore.

> I'm migrating to the 360 shortly and I suggest you all jump ship with
> me!
> 
I bought a 360 and IMO it is a waste of money. I got suckered into that 
one by listening to all the weenies saying how great it is. The games 
are mostly arcade kiddy shite, except Oblivion, but I already have that 
on the PC. All it's realy good at is sports games.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:03:47 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>Three things are preventing me.
>
>(1) flight sims
>(2) strategy games
>(3) mouse/keyboard controller
>
>Find a way to incorporate those and I'm sold! 

Consoles are turning into PC's, so it's going to happen.
They're now coming with DVD drives, hard drives, ethernet ports and
graphics hardware created by the same companies that make PC hardware.

Its just not there yet for me. I don't like FPS games with a gamepad,
I don't like stick and ball sports, so the only thing that appeals to
me on consoles at the moment is racing games. Perhaps the generation
after the XBox 360 and PS3.

"Tim O" <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e0cvd2pj6odtljnei15vgrtds3u14vi69i@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:03:47 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
> <cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Three things are preventing me.
>>
>>(1) flight sims
>>(2) strategy games
>>(3) mouse/keyboard controller
>>
>>Find a way to incorporate those and I'm sold!
>
> Consoles are turning into PC's, so it's going to happen.
> They're now coming with DVD drives, hard drives, ethernet ports and
> graphics hardware created by the same companies that make PC hardware.
>
> Its just not there yet for me. I don't like FPS games with a gamepad,
> I don't like stick and ball sports, so the only thing that appeals to
> me on consoles at the moment is racing games. Perhaps the generation
> after the XBox 360 and PS3.

I think it may be two generations away quite frankly. There will be lots of 
growing pains with the new storage technology (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray), mulit-core 
CPU's, and high definition displays. The XBOX 3 will probably basically fix 
all X360's faults, and then XBOX 4, if things go as they have been, will 
probably be ready as a gaming PC replacement. That'll be 8-10 years down the 
road.

I'm not object to consoles. It's mainly their stupid gamepads that make most 
games unenjoyable for me. Well that, and the fact that there are ten billion 
stuipd FPS and sports games and none of the types that I love. 

"Garrot" <no1@home.today> wrote in message 
news:xINDg.392453$IK3.382765@pd7tw1no...
> flightlessvacuum@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> PC gaming is dying, my local gaming store which used to cater almost
>> exclusively for my PC gaming needs has now completely dropped selling
>> PC games in favour of consoles only.
>
> Yea, I went to EB about two weeks ago and they moved all the PC games 
> (except new ones) off the wall and onto a crappy rack that displays the 
> games like a book shelf. I won't be shopping at EB for PC games anymore.
>
>> I'm migrating to the 360 shortly and I suggest you all jump ship with
>> me!
>>
> I bought a 360 and IMO it is a waste of money. I got suckered into that 
> one by listening to all the weenies saying how great it is. The games are 
> mostly arcade kiddy shite, except Oblivion, but I already have that on the 
> PC. All it's realy good at is sports games.

Yeah, there's nothing drawing me to the X360 yet.

Chrome Hounds looks appealing, but not enough to take the plunge.

If Over G Fighters were good, and they offered actual flight controls, I'd 
probably bite, but reviews are quite bitter.

I stopped shopping at EB and GameStop a couple years back after I realized 
it was nothing but a bunch of punks that worked and shopped there. I'd go to 
buy a new game, and they'd take the CD out of the closet and put it in a 
case already opened. I'd tell them I want a sealed game, but they said they 
don't operate that way. Inspecting the CD, it was obvious it was handled 
more than once. I said I wanted the used price then, but they refused. I 
also want to be able to return a game if I get it for a gift, or made an 
impulse purchase and decide I should return it. Fat chance if the case is 
already opened.

I will order from them online, but refuse to go in the stores. 

"HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot@gmail.com> writes:

> "Tim O" <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:e0cvd2pj6odtljnei15vgrtds3u14vi69i@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:03:47 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
>> <cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Three things are preventing me.
>>>
>>>(1) flight sims
>>>(2) strategy games
>>>(3) mouse/keyboard controller
>>>
>>>Find a way to incorporate those and I'm sold!
>>
>> Consoles are turning into PC's, so it's going to happen.
>> They're now coming with DVD drives, hard drives, ethernet ports and
>> graphics hardware created by the same companies that make PC hardware.
>>
>> Its just not there yet for me. I don't like FPS games with a gamepad,
>> I don't like stick and ball sports, so the only thing that appeals to
>> me on consoles at the moment is racing games. Perhaps the generation
>> after the XBox 360 and PS3.
>
> I think it may be two generations away quite frankly. There will be lots of 
> growing pains with the new storage technology (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray), mulit-core 
> CPU's, and high definition displays. The XBOX 3 will probably basically fix 
> all X360's faults, and then XBOX 4, if things go as they have been, will 
> probably be ready as a gaming PC replacement. That'll be 8-10 years down the 
> road.

But why not just use a PC then ...

Tim O wrote:

> Its just not there yet for me. I don't like FPS games with a gamepad,
> I don't like stick and ball sports, so the only thing that appeals to
> me on consoles at the moment is racing games. Perhaps the generation
> after the XBox 360 and PS3.

Racing games are crap with a gamepad too. Wheel/Pedals is the way to go. 
PC's has better racing sims  than you will find on any console.

HockeyTownUSA wrote:

> Yeah, there's nothing drawing me to the X360 yet.
> 
> Chrome Hounds looks appealing, but not enough to take the plunge.

Looks good but there is no cockpit, that means no buy from me.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:08:31 -0400, Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Its just not there yet for me. I don't like FPS games with a gamepad,
>I don't like stick and ball sports, so the only thing that appeals to
>me on consoles at the moment is racing games. Perhaps the generation
>after the XBox 360 and PS3.

The 360 could run FPS games with kb&m, games developers unfortunately
choose not to support them.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:59:51 GMT, Garrot <no1@home.today> wrote:

>Racing games are crap with a gamepad too. Wheel/Pedals is the way to go. 

You can get wheels for consoles.

>PC's has better racing sims  than you will find on any console.

Conversely, for those of us that don't always like sims, consoles have
better arcade racers. The PC has nothing like PGR3 on the 360.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:52:45 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, there's nothing drawing me to the X360 yet.

Personally I like my 360.

>Chrome Hounds looks appealing, but not enough to take the plunge.

I played the 360 demo and it looked terrible, like a bad game from 6
years ago, the only fun was blowing up buildings, there was no fun in
the actual gameplay.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:13:44 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>The 360 could run FPS games with kb&m, games developers unfortunately
>choose not to support them.

There must be a reason for the lack of kb/m support. If it just used the
basic DXInput API then it would be simple to add support to any game
(it's a few lines of code on PC to add DXI support), so there must be a
reason why few have bothered, i.e.; DXI not available, DXI slow or
causes other problems, hardware interference between controller & kb/m ?
-- 
Alfie
<http://www.delphia.co.uk/>
Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper ? He sold his soul to Santa.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:20:20 +0100, "Alfie [UK]" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>>The 360 could run FPS games with kb&m, games developers unfortunately
>>choose not to support them.
>
>There must be a reason for the lack of kb/m support. If it just used the
>basic DXInput API then it would be simple to add support to any game
>(it's a few lines of code on PC to add DXI support), so there must be a
>reason why few have bothered, i.e.; DXI not available, DXI slow or
>causes other problems, hardware interference between controller & kb/m ?

Simply because when they design the AI for a game, they have to dumb
it down for gamepad users. A standard console FPS would be a cakewalk
with a mouse. Similarly in MP FPS games, there would be uproar if
mouse users were allowed to play against gamepad users online. So
developers, and I am sure MS have a hand in it, keep away from the
whole issue.

You can use a standard USB keyboard on the 360 just fine for anything
that requires text input.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:48:07 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>Simply because when they design the AI for a game, they have to dumb
>it down for gamepad users. A standard console FPS would be a cakewalk
>with a mouse. Similarly in MP FPS games, there would be uproar if
>mouse users were allowed to play against gamepad users online. So
>developers, and I am sure MS have a hand in it, keep away from the
>whole issue.

Which game is it that the developers claim they have (or will have to)
"dumbed down "  the game to give keyboard/mouse PC players a chance
against  "superior" Gamepad players? Isn't it an upcoming FPS for the
XBOX 360? 

I just cannot imagine any better way of playing FPS than using a
keyboard and mouse. Trying to play FPS and 3rd person shooters with a
gamepad that incorporates an analogue stick is really frustrating.

As much as like RE4 on the Gamecube, it is blatantly obvious that the
gameplay is designed around using a more cumbersome control method.

-- 
Rob

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:15:49 GMT, Rob
<noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:

>Which game is it that the developers claim they have (or will have to)
>"dumbed down "  the game to give keyboard/mouse PC players a chance
>against  "superior" Gamepad players? Isn't it an upcoming FPS for the
>XBOX 360? 

Shadowrun (I think it is called), its gameplay is bound to be kludged
to handicap the PC mouse players somehow. I think it is mostly third
person though.

>I just cannot imagine any better way of playing FPS than using a
>keyboard and mouse. Trying to play FPS and 3rd person shooters with a
>gamepad that incorporates an analogue stick is really frustrating.

I hate it myself, I am slowly getting used to it on my 360, but will
never be happy with it.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:08:31 -0400, Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:03:47 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
><cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Three things are preventing me.
>>
>>(1) flight sims
>>(2) strategy games
>>(3) mouse/keyboard controller
>>
>>Find a way to incorporate those and I'm sold! 
>
>Consoles are turning into PC's, so it's going to happen.

Hogwash. In order to become PCs, they would need to become more
standardized and expandable in hardware, they should become open so
that anyone can make their own programs to them (never going to
happen, because the console companies want to have a total control
over programming on their product, to get their license fees for every
program sold for their console), etc.

Add to that that the fragmented console market (Sony, MS, Nintendo)
means people would probably have to stick to their "brand" just to
keep their existing "console-PC" hardware and software. Do you really
think MSWord for XBox720 and the documents you have written with it
would work ok on Playstation5's and Nintendo Yeehaw's corresponding
word processors? Unlike in home computer world, there is no clear
market leader (x86-compatibles with MS operating system) in which you
can count for years to come.

Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:46:39 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Tim O" <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:e0cvd2pj6odtljnei15vgrtds3u14vi69i@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:03:47 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
>> <cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Consoles are turning into PC's, so it's going to happen.
>
>I think it may be two generations away quite frankly.

One more thing: since the console manufacturers (Sony, MS, Nintendo)
rely on people buying games for their consoles to get their license
fees for every game sold for their console, they do not want to make
cheap PC-alternatives which people would use mainly for PC stuff, not
for playing games. They would just lose money on a market model like
that, as they are not making money from selling hardware (=consoles
themselves), but selling games.

Unless, of course, they would charge everyone for a monthly fee for
just using their console for PC stuff. That might work, but the
problems I mentioned in the earlier message still exist.

The "console-PC" model was already tried out in the 80s. We had from
lots of different manufacturers so called "home computers" whose main
purpose was still mainly gaming, but they had keyboards and all. They
were still mainly just toys, and died off one by one as soon as some
competitor came up with even more powerful "home computer". Commodore
was almost there with its VIC-20, C=64 and latest Amiga line of
computers to become the leader, but as you can probably remember (if
you are old enough), none of them were backward compatible (which is
rather important for computer users nowadays), and at the end Amiga
died off when it tried to become a Real PC, but could not compete with
Microsoft and Intel after all.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:42:48 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:

>Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
>guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
>to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
>simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).


I think it's more a case of consoles becoming more "PC like". I
believe that consoles are evolving into something somewhere in between
the two. 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:13:44 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:08:31 -0400, Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Its just not there yet for me. I don't like FPS games with a gamepad,
>>I don't like stick and ball sports, so the only thing that appeals to
>>me on consoles at the moment is racing games. Perhaps the generation
>>after the XBox 360 and PS3.
>
>The 360 could run FPS games with kb&m, games developers unfortunately
>choose not to support them.

No wonder, since they don't want to give only some users an advantage
in online games, and most people would not want to try to play with a
keyboard and a mouse from their couch or living room floor anyway (the
two places in which console games are played at most homes).

Even for single-player games, it could become quite a burden try to
balance the gameplay so that it works well both for the very
cumbersome gamepad controls, and the superior and much more fluid
mouse control.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:16:56 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rainbow Six Las Vegas so far looks like it is for X360 and PS3 only.
>
>Call of Duty 3 is slated for, get this, the XBOX, X360, PS2, and PS3 but NOT 
>for PC? WTF is up with that? If it out for the antiquated XBOX and PS2, why 
>not the PC?

Have they also announced that there will be no separate PC versions
for each franchise?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think there is even one Call of
Duty, Rainbow Six or Medal of Honor line of game(s) that were
developed simultaneously for both console(s) and PC, having the same
levels and gameplay. I think they always made a separate PC and
console version for each, and even named them differently. Well, there
might be some later RS game that appeared on both PC and XBox and had
the same levels and gameplay, but it was an exception.

Don't we have enough ultralinear WW2 FPS games anyway? Rainbow Six
line of games have been dumbed down during these years, all the
pre-mission tactical planning has been dropped etc. It is not what it
used to be.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:59:51 GMT, Garrot <no1@home.today> wrote:

>Tim O wrote:
>
>> Its just not there yet for me. I don't like FPS games with a gamepad,
>> I don't like stick and ball sports, so the only thing that appeals to
>> me on consoles at the moment is racing games. Perhaps the generation
>> after the XBox 360 and PS3.
>
>Racing games are crap with a gamepad too. Wheel/Pedals is the way to go. 
>PC's has better racing sims  than you will find on any console.

I like driving sims and games. Stuff like Burnout appeals to me just
as much as hard core sims. You can get a wheel and pedals for the
consoles.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:55:25 GMT, Rob
<noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:

>>Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
>>guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
>>to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
>>simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).
>
>
>I think it's more a case of consoles becoming more "PC like". I
>believe that consoles are evolving into something somewhere in between
>the two. 

Something like Commodore Amiga in the late eighties then. Which died
off in the pressure of MS-Intel mammoth, for several reasons I
mentioned earlier. Even Microsoft itself does not seem too keen on
trying to turn its XBox into a PC for all homes. And even if it did,
the market would just become too fragmented for end users to try to
figure out which "PC like console" to buy home to do their PC stuff.
Do you think you will be able to burn DVDs with your future consoles,
for example? Or freely install various third-party programs to do
completely new things on the net? Consoles could probably never
compete with real PCs in those fronts, so most people would rather
stick to PC for their PC stuff, and keep their console as simple and
cheap as possible, mainly just for games (and maybe as a media
player).

I personally don't believe consoles becoming "PC like" in any useful
sense of the word. Maybe you can do some web browsing with it etc.,
but like I said, the console companies don't want people buy consoles
to replace PCs, but to play games on. Otherwise they will make even
less money than today.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:55:25 GMT, Rob
<noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:42:48 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
>>guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
>>to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
>>simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).
>
>
>I think it's more a case of consoles becoming more "PC like". I
>believe that consoles are evolving into something somewhere in between
>the two. 

Right. Riku is citing the things that are hurting the PC market as the
things that make consoles unlike PC's.

I've owned original Playstation, a couple handhelds and the XBox, and
all have collected dust since I tend to gravitate toward PC games.
Anyone that can't see consoles adapting the PC's strengths in areas
like graphics horsepower and broadband gaming is in denial.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:17:32 -0400, Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote:


>I've owned original Playstation, a couple handhelds and the XBox, and
>all have collected dust since I tend to gravitate toward PC games.

Similar here but with Nintendo. I have an original NES, a SNES, an N64
and a Gamecube. Although in my case it's because I have found the
Zelda games to be completely enchanting.  It was actually a game
called Shadowgate that made me buy a NES, but the Zelda series is the
reason for buying the others.

I rarely play them in comparison to the amount of time I spend playing
PC games though.

>Anyone that can't see consoles adapting the PC's strengths in areas
>like graphics horsepower and broadband gaming is in denial.

I agree with this. I think it makes business sense too. I can also see
a time when consoles will become somewhat able to be upgraded. Perhaps
with new graphics chips being able to be added via slots or ports. PC
graphics cards started down this road for a while. I remember buying
extra memory chips for my Matrox Mystique and (I think) for my  ATi
XPert@Play.


I never have bought into the "PC games are dying" train of thought. As
long as there is a PC  and the Internet there will be a market for
games for it. Whether the PC becomes a console hybrid or vise versa in
years to come remains to be seen. In the end though I do believe that
the two things will merge.

-- 
Rob

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, HockeyTownUSA wrote:

> Three things are preventing me.
>
> (1) flight sims
> (2) strategy games
> (3) mouse/keyboard controller

How about mods and patches and other free fan made content?

-- 
   Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de)              Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy"            Vorlonships

I haven't yet seen a dearth of PC games retail space in Ireland yet.
Sure, the shops which mainly cater for second-hand games don't sell
them. But other stores here have large PG games sections. HMW, a
general video/games/audio store, has as big a section for PC gaming as
for consoles.

And as someone else has mentioned, there's been a huge move to PC
online retail; by definition, most PC gamers would have the capability
to purchase online. 3 of the top ten games in the current play.com
charts are PC (Darkstar One, The Sims 2 and Rollercoaster Tycoon 3).
Only the X360 also has 3 games in the top ten, and that's the latest
next-gen console. That doesn't suggest PC gaming dying just yet.

As for myself, well, I just _sold_ my last console, a venerable PS1
which I bought back in 1996 and has been gathering dust-bunnies for
several years under the TV. I personally can't see myself buying a
console again, for many reasons already stated in this group:

1=2E Gamepads work well in some games, but mainly ones I'm not interested
in (driving and sports) and are lousy for ones I'm especially
interested in (FPS, RPG and strategy). Attempting to play "Warcraft II"
on my PS1 was an exercise in Jeromian purgation.

2=2E, Most games I want are PC-only or have a PC version, the latter with
the added bonus that they're cheaper and can be modded (see: Oblivion).

2=2E The cost of a next-gen console (with the expection of Wii, but see
below) is now comparable with a major PC upgrade, or even a modest PC.

3=2E I'm just not a livingroom gamer. I like being able to use a mouse at
a desk to play, with a high-res screen rather than my bog-standard TV
(I've no plans to go HD or plasma). I like being able to switch into
mail or maybe into a browser to look up something about the game at
hand.

4=2E The game prices! I had flirted with the idea of buying a
Wee^H^H^HWii (high praise from someone who hates Nintendo fanboyism)
until I checked the price of the games. =8075 each! Obviously these are
full prices and at some stage you'll have budget prices and discounts,
but that's still taking the piss; it's about a third of the price of
the console itself.=20

P=2E

On 14 Aug 2006 04:55:00 -0700, "Paul Moloney"
<paul_moloney@hotmail.com> wrote:

>2. The cost of a next-gen console (with the expection of Wii, but see
>below) is now comparable with a major PC upgrade, or even a modest PC.

A 360 costs about as much as a good, not even high end graphics card,
let alone the rest of the components. You certainly couldn't buy a
gaming PC for that sort of cost.

I bought my 360 as an interim measure waiting for Vista and affordable
64bit dual core CPU's and DX10 graphics cards in a year or so.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

riku <riku@none.invalid.com> writes:

> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:08:31 -0400, Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:03:47 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
>><cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Three things are preventing me.
>>>
>>>(1) flight sims
>>>(2) strategy games
>>>(3) mouse/keyboard controller
>>>
>>>Find a way to incorporate those and I'm sold! 
>>
>>Consoles are turning into PC's, so it's going to happen.
>
> Hogwash. In order to become PCs, they would need to become more
> standardized and expandable in hardware, they should become open so
> that anyone can make their own programs to them (never going to

The PS3 has Linux as its OS. It doesnt get more open.

> happen, because the console companies want to have a total control
> over programming on their product, to get their license fees for every
> program sold for their console), etc.
>
> Add to that that the fragmented console market (Sony, MS, Nintendo)
> means people would probably have to stick to their "brand" just to
> keep their existing "console-PC" hardware and software. Do you really

PC/Mac/Sun etc.

> think MSWord for XBox720 and the documents you have written with it
> would work ok on Playstation5's and Nintendo Yeehaw's corresponding
> word processors? Unlike in home computer world, there is no clear
> market leader (x86-compatibles with MS operating system) in which you
> can count for years to come.

The PS2 is way ahead of the rest.

>
> Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
> guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
> to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
> simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).
>

And racing games with pedals/wheels etc. Or electric guitars? Or
microphones? or guns? When was the last time you saw a console in
action?

> As much as like RE4 on the Gamecube, it is blatantly obvious that the
> gameplay is designed around using a more cumbersome control method.

RE4 is being ported to PC for a fall release.

Will you buy it again for the PC? The gameplay looks too slow-paced to 
me no matter what type of system it's on.

> The 360 could run FPS games with kb&m, games developers unfortunately
> choose not to support them.

The PS3 is touting K&M support via USB. But, as you said, developers 
will have to design the support into the games. The next Unreal 
Tournament on PS3 is a no-brainer for K&M support, but who knows about 
other upcoming FPS games.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:59:40 -0500, Sketch <no@nah.nut> wrote:

>> As much as like RE4 on the Gamecube, it is blatantly obvious that the
>> gameplay is designed around using a more cumbersome control method.
>
>RE4 is being ported to PC for a fall release.
>
>Will you buy it again for the PC? The gameplay looks too slow-paced to 
>me no matter what type of system it's on.

Yes I will be buying it for the PC. I'm about half way through the GC
version. I stopped playing it once I discovered a PC version was being
released.

I like the atmosphere of RE4, I hope the PC version manages to convey
that atmosphere whilst providing more challenging gameplay with a
better control system. I would hope for a first person view option
too, although I'm sure we won't get one.

-- 
Rob

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:02:54 -0500, Sketch <no@nah.nut> wrote:

>The PS3 is touting K&M support via USB. But, as you said, developers 
>will have to design the support into the games. The next Unreal 
>Tournament on PS3 is a no-brainer for K&M support, but who knows about 
>other upcoming FPS games.

That would be the only thing that would get me very interested in
buying a PS3. At the moment I am waiting for the Wii to see how well
that handles FPS games.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

> I like the atmosphere of RE4, I hope the PC version manages to convey
> that atmosphere whilst providing more challenging gameplay with a
> better control system.

That's it in a nutshell for me, even though I haven't played RE4 (only 
seen gameplay movies). I hope it turns out to be more engaging than 
Condemned, for example, which had plenty of atmosphere yet repetitive 
gameplay.

Andrew wrote:

> Conversely, for those of us that don't always like sims, consoles have
> better arcade racers. The PC has nothing like PGR3 on the 360.

Horses for courses...I hated PGR3 on the 360. :)

Tim O wrote:

> I like driving sims and games. Stuff like Burnout appeals to me just
> as much as hard core sims. You can get a wheel and pedals for the
> consoles.

Yea, but I want one that works on both my PC and 360. I'm not spending 
over $300.00 CAD so I can have two sets of wheel/pedals. Microsoft would 
be smart to make gaming peripherals that work on both platforms. Like 
their wired gamepad for the 360 does.

Michael Cecil wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2006 20:51:20 -0700, flightlessvacuum@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >PC gaming is dying, my local gaming store which used to cater almost
>
> It's not PC gaming that is dying - it's "local gaming stores".  You can
> get stuff online faster and cheaper.  Local stores cater to console stuff
> for kids because kids don't have credit cards and can't order online as
> easily.

No, PC gaming is dying. All we get now are the crumbs left over from
console land if former PC developers are feeling particularly
nostalgic, they might throw us a port here or there. And you can blame
the death of PC gaming on piracy. That is mentioned by almost every
developer as the reason why they are no longer targeting the PC and
have switched their focus to the console. When the number of downloads
of a game outstrip the number of units sold by a factor of 10 or more,
you know that piracy is a huge problem (ie. maybe 10% of the market is
actually paying for it).

Knight37

"Sketch" <no@nah.nut> wrote in message news:ebqdtu$rin$1@news.tamu.edu...
>> I like the atmosphere of RE4, I hope the PC version manages to convey
>> that atmosphere whilst providing more challenging gameplay with a
>> better control system.
>
> That's it in a nutshell for me, even though I haven't played RE4 (only 
> seen gameplay movies). I hope it turns out to be more engaging than 
> Condemned, for example, which had plenty of atmosphere yet repetitive 
> gameplay.

Yeah, I bought RE4 for the PS2 and got frustrated with the controls. It 
looked and seemed to play great, but the controls frustrated me beyond 
belief. I will probably pick it up for the PC as well. Same thing with Halo. 
I never was able to finish Halo on the XBOX, but blew through it on the PC 
because I had so much better control.

Consoles don't even necessarily need to use a KB/M either. Just something 
better than the thumb driven analog joysticks. 

"Andrew" <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote in message 
news:u141e2tc2gm3d2oqncosici1t3d8pcdqlb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:02:54 -0500, Sketch <no@nah.nut> wrote:
>
>>The PS3 is touting K&M support via USB. But, as you said, developers
>>will have to design the support into the games. The next Unreal
>>Tournament on PS3 is a no-brainer for K&M support, but who knows about
>>other upcoming FPS games.
>
> That would be the only thing that would get me very interested in
> buying a PS3. At the moment I am waiting for the Wii to see how well
> that handles FPS games.
> -- 

Yeah, I give kudos to Nintendo for trying to come up with a different 
control scheme. Maybe it isn't perfect, but at least they are trying to come 
up with something better. 

"riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:m9k0e21v7jml1j0up959esdoav4hkpcb9v@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:08:31 -0400, Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:03:47 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
>><cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Three things are preventing me.
>>>
>>>(1) flight sims
>>>(2) strategy games
>>>(3) mouse/keyboard controller
>>>
>>>Find a way to incorporate those and I'm sold!
>>
>>Consoles are turning into PC's, so it's going to happen.
>
> Hogwash. In order to become PCs, they would need to become more
> standardized and expandable in hardware, they should become open so
> that anyone can make their own programs to them (never going to
> happen, because the console companies want to have a total control
> over programming on their product, to get their license fees for every
> program sold for their console), etc.
>
> Add to that that the fragmented console market (Sony, MS, Nintendo)
> means people would probably have to stick to their "brand" just to
> keep their existing "console-PC" hardware and software. Do you really
> think MSWord for XBox720 and the documents you have written with it
> would work ok on Playstation5's and Nintendo Yeehaw's corresponding
> word processors? Unlike in home computer world, there is no clear
> market leader (x86-compatibles with MS operating system) in which you
> can count for years to come.
>
> Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
> guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
> to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
> simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).
>

I'm not referring to a console being used as a PC for office apps. But 
consoles more PC-like as far as games. Games designed specifically for the 
PC seem so much more robust with so many more options and features, not to 
mention upgradeability.

I know consoles eliminate that rapid upgrade path that PC's have, but at 
least offer one set up decent updates after a couple years, like a faster 
video card, more or faster memory, and faster CPU. That would allow gamers 
to use games at higher resolutions. So standard video would run fine at 480p 
or 720p, but the update would allow it to run at 1080i, or actually make 
games more playable without noticeable frame drops. That is completely 
unacceptable for a console anyways. 

"Andrew" <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote in message 
news:pcp0e2t14m44trkunha88hv92u8ndutp0r@4ax.com...
> On 14 Aug 2006 04:55:00 -0700, "Paul Moloney"
> <paul_moloney@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>2. The cost of a next-gen console (with the expection of Wii, but see
>>below) is now comparable with a major PC upgrade, or even a modest PC.
>
> A 360 costs about as much as a good, not even high end graphics card,
> let alone the rest of the components. You certainly couldn't buy a
> gaming PC for that sort of cost.
>
> I bought my 360 as an interim measure waiting for Vista and affordable
> 64bit dual core CPU's and DX10 graphics cards in a year or so.
> -- 

Well, if you take into account the XBOX 360, Cables, and an extra 
controller, you're looking at $600 for a basic setup. I just sold my last 
PC, actually used a few components from it in my new PC, and cost difference 
was $500. I typically make that sort of investment every two years. And puts 
me near the top of the curve.

This doesn't even take into account the screen. At this point in time, it's 
safe to say that even a large majority of people who buy X360's don't have a 
high-def display. That'll run $600 to many thousands, depending on the 
display. Granted it can be used for TV and movie viewing as well.

Then take into account the cost of games. Most new X360 games are $60-$70. 
Most new PC titles are $40, some $50.

So take everything into account, and the console is probably a little 
cheaper. But I look at my PC and it is used for more than just gaming too. I 
figure if I'm going to have a PC anyhow, I might as well spend a little more 
and make it gaming capable.

To each their own. Good for everyone who buy their consoles. I'm glad, it 
keeps the economy moving. I, myself, own an XBOX and PS2. Both which I 
bought when XBOX was $150 and slim PS2 was $130. I have a couple dozen games 
between the two and have had fun, but those consoles probably only have a 
couple hundred hours of game-time total on them. I don't even know how many 
thousands of hours I've spent on my PC. 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:02:38 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, I give kudos to Nintendo for trying to come up with a different 
>control scheme. Maybe it isn't perfect, but at least they are trying to come 
>up with something better. 

Definitely, I may not see eye to eye with everything that Nintendo
releases games wise, but thank $deity there is a company that is
prepared to take risks with hardware and give the other companies a
kick up the backside.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:17:32 -0400, Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:55:25 GMT, Rob
><noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:42:48 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
>>>guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
>>>to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
>>>simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).
>>
>>
>>I think it's more a case of consoles becoming more "PC like". I
>>believe that consoles are evolving into something somewhere in between
>>the two. 
>
>Right. Riku is citing the things that are hurting the PC market as the
>things that make consoles unlike PC's.

No I didn't, the only problem is your poor reading comprehension
ability.

Someone (you?) claimed that as future consoles become "PC-like", they
will get more and more PC-like games (strategy, flight sims etc.) and
their games will start supporting PC-like control schemes en masse.

I guess the thinking behind that idea was that current PC users would
move from their Windows/x86 PCs to do their PC stuff on future
consoles instead, and at the same time would create a new console
market segment that wants to play PC-like games on consoles. But as I
said, I don't see it happening that people are moving or even want to
move to restricted and closed platform consoles for their PC stuff.

Plus, as I said, the console companies themselves don't want to turn
their consoles to PCs either, unless they can figure out how to make
some serious cash from people using their consoles as "PCs". See how
angry people are about the PS3 price tag already? How high would it be
if Sony really wanted to profit from selling the units (hardware)?
Remember what happened to 3DO consoles which tried the same scheme
(making money from the hardware itself), with their $500-700 price
tags?

>I've owned original Playstation, a couple handhelds and the XBox, and
>all have collected dust since I tend to gravitate toward PC games.
>Anyone that can't see consoles adapting the PC's strengths in areas
>like graphics horsepower and broadband gaming is in denial.

"Graphics horsepower" and "broadband gaming" are not what we were
talking about here. You seem a bit confused.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:19:26 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, if you take into account the XBOX 360, Cables, and an extra 
>controller, you're looking at $600 for a basic setup.

What cables? You get composite and component cables with the $400
premium XBox and you can add $45 for a second controller if you need
one, so that is $445 without even touching on the crappy $299 core
system if you wanted a genuinely basic setup.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:29:24 GMT, Rob
<noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:

>I agree with this. I think it makes business sense too. I can also see
>a time when consoles will become somewhat able to be upgraded. Perhaps
>with new graphics chips being able to be added via slots or ports.

I personally don't believe in that happening, because it would make
new consoles even more expensive than what they are now. Hardware
integration makes the units cheaper than if you made it highly
expandable and modular, like PCs are. Console companies know they
would probably be shooting themselves in the foot with a scheme like
that, and console buyers would gravitate to cheaper consoles that
don't seriously try to be anything else but a cheap gaming machine. I
think this is something that Nintendo Wii is doing right at the
moment.

With "replaceable" graphics chips etc., they would make their consoles
harder to manage, prone to compatibility problems (is it guaranteed
the new chip will work with all old games?) etc. Exactly the things
that console gamers want to avoid.

History has shown console users don't want to upgrade and expand their
console that much. Peripherals and expansions that were sold for Sega
Genesis, PSX etc. didn't succeed that well to become mainstream. There
are some peripherals that do ok like EyeToy, but how many PS2 owners
have it either? 3% of all PS2 owners?

People much rather buy a whole new unit instead with no expansion
hassles in between. Semi-expandable console-computers died off with
Commodore Amiga in the early 90s.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:57:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Hogwash. In order to become PCs, they would need to become more
>> standardized and expandable in hardware, they should become open so
>> that anyone can make their own programs to them (never going to
>
>The PS3 has Linux as its OS. It doesnt get more open.

Don't play stupid. That is not the point. Can any PS3 owner _freely_
make their own PS3 programs, and distribute or sell them as they wish?
They can't. Furthermore, can you install any other OS on PS3 if you
wish, like you can on your PC? Sony controls it all, unlike Microsoft
does in Windows PC. That is what the openness means.

>> Add to that that the fragmented console market (Sony, MS, Nintendo)
>> means people would probably have to stick to their "brand" just to
>> keep their existing "console-PC" hardware and software. Do you really
>
>PC/Mac/Sun etc.

Yet, Windows/x86 is clearly the market leader, in fact you could say
they practically own the desktop market. With consoles, there is no
similar company with a monopoly status, especially if you look through
the different generations. Sony was the leader of two previous
generations, Nintendo the two before that etc. The console market is
much more volatile in that sense than the desktop PC market. No one
expects Mac to conquer the desktop market. If anything, people are
wondering how Mac is still around. A true niche machine, just like
Commodore Amiga was.

>> think MSWord for XBox720 and the documents you have written with it
>> would work ok on Playstation5's and Nintendo Yeehaw's corresponding
>> word processors? Unlike in home computer world, there is no clear
>> market leader (x86-compatibles with MS operating system) in which you
>> can count for years to come.
>
>The PS2 is way ahead of the rest.

1. Not even near as much as MS/x86 is on desktop market.

2. Just like things changed from SNES to Playstation (market leader
changed), same can happen yet again. Especially with PS3's amazing
price tag and confusing way of trying to sell different configurations
with different prices. I think many console gamers will just say "fuck
it" and go to cheaper and more hassle-free solutions instead when
buying a Christmas present for their little Johnny, e.g. Nintendo Wii.

>> Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
>> guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
>> to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
>> simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).
>
>And racing games with pedals/wheels etc. Or electric guitars? Or
>microphones? or guns? When was the last time you saw a console in
>action?

Show me one console racing game that is NOT fully playable on a
handheld gamepad, and I'll show you several hardcore PC flight
simulations that are not playable on a gamepad. So it appears you were
comparing apples to oranges yet again.

As for your other peripherals, they don't belong to this discussion
anyway. The question was whether PC like controllers (like keyboard
and mouse) would become mainstream on consoles to justify widespread
support on console games for them. I say they won't at least in their
current form, because most people don't like the idea of trying to use
a kb&m in the living room, trying to balance them on their lap or try
to reach the low sofa table to put them on. Naturally, "electric
guitars" etc. don't have the same restriction, but then their usage is
very limited anyway to only one type of game, so they are merely
novelties.

How many PS2 owners do you think have bought pedals and wheels anyway?
0.5% maybe? I know lots of people who own PS2s and XBoxes and play
racing games on them, yet no one has bought them either. If the same
0.5% bought a kb&m for their PS3, that would hardly guarantee
widespread kb&m support in PS3 games.

So, nice try, but no cigar. I see you just wanted to argue for
argument's sake, when you knew from the start you have no point
whatsoever.

Tell me again mitty, do you believe consoles and PCs will merge in the
near future? If so, why did you say yourself just earlier that people
would just get a PC to do their PC stuff, instead of getting a
"PC-like console"? Did you suddenly change your mind just because you
wanted to argue with me?

You are so predictable. Grow up.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:06:53 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm not referring to a console being used as a PC for office apps. But 
>consoles more PC-like as far as games.

I think the discussion was mainly about keyboard&mouse support
becoming standard or widespread in console FPS and strategy (and other
"PC-like" games), and games that usually exist only on PCs moving to
consoles, like hardcore flight simulations for example, which also
need more versatile control options and are not playable on standard
console gamepad controller (unlike e.g. racing games are, an example
walter mitty tried to use earlier).

The question is: what guarantees enough people would buy kb&m for
their console to justify support in more games, and what would be the
driving force for hardcore flight sims appearing on consoles? Why
didn't they already? It is not like PS3 or Xbox wouldn't have had
enough CPU or graphics power to handle hardcore flight simulations.
Instead, they got straight flight combat shoot em ups like the Ace
Combat games, which were also fully playable on a standard gamepad.

"riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:f6q2e2tn3tr7iua1ubmoccct3cfhskgul2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:17:32 -0400, Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:55:25 GMT, Rob
>><noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:42:48 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Furthermore, I don't see how "consoles are becoming PCs" would
>>>>guarantee PC type games appearing on consoles anyway. You don't want
>>>>to try to play serious flight sims on your sofa, it is a place for
>>>>simple action games with simple controls (=gamepad).
>>>
>>>
>>>I think it's more a case of consoles becoming more "PC like". I
>>>believe that consoles are evolving into something somewhere in between
>>>the two.
>>
>>Right. Riku is citing the things that are hurting the PC market as the
>>things that make consoles unlike PC's.
>
> No I didn't, the only problem is your poor reading comprehension
> ability.
>
> Someone (you?) claimed that as future consoles become "PC-like", they
> will get more and more PC-like games (strategy, flight sims etc.) and
> their games will start supporting PC-like control schemes en masse.
>
> I guess the thinking behind that idea was that current PC users would
> move from their Windows/x86 PCs to do their PC stuff on future
> consoles instead, and at the same time would create a new console
> market segment that wants to play PC-like games on consoles. But as I
> said, I don't see it happening that people are moving or even want to
> move to restricted and closed platform consoles for their PC stuff.
>

My original post was *not* about consoles becoming more PC-Like, but the 
decision of big publishers to ignore the PC as a gaming platform. I don't 
think consoles will become like PC's. They are game machines but are 
starting to add a few extra entertainment elements like watching movies or 
browsing the web. I'm mostly not happy with the control scheme to be honest 
with you. 

HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> Well, if you take into account the XBOX 360, Cables, and an extra
> controller, you're looking at $600 for a basic setup. I just sold my last
> PC, actually used a few components from it in my new PC, and cost difference
> was $500. I typically make that sort of investment every two years. And puts
> me near the top of the curve.

Xbox 360 Premium is $400 anywhere, I've seen it as cheap as $360
online. That includes HD cables and 1 wireless controller. Add another
wireless controller for $50, and a quick charge kit to recharge them
for $40. That's $490 at most, and is the most deluxe package you would
need. The Xbox 360 Core (aka Tard) package is only $300 and you can get
wired controllers for $40. Also buying extra controllers for your
console is IMHO akin to buying extra controllers for your PC - they
aren't mandatory.

> This doesn't even take into account the screen. At this point in time, it's
> safe to say that even a large majority of people who buy X360's don't have a
> high-def display. That'll run $600 to many thousands, depending on the
> display. Granted it can be used for TV and movie viewing as well.

An HD TV investment is FAR more than just a monitor for your 360. At
most you should allocate 20-30% of the cost to the 360's cost of
ownership. It's not even mandatory, Since the system works on low-def
TV's also (admittedly, a bad choice). And if you are going to require
an HD TV cost for part of the 360 you should add the cost of a monitor
for your PC (and that IS mandatory). I typically get a TV once every
8-10 years, and a new monitor for my PC every 4-6 years or so.

I can see myself having to upgrade my TV sooner than 8 years,
considering that they keep fucking changing the HDMI spec and there may
be a time where my TV won't work with all the latest gizmos like HD-DVD
or what-have-yous. But I'll be damned if I buy a new one sooner than
2011.

> Then take into account the cost of games. Most new X360 games are $60-$70.
> Most new PC titles are $40, some $50.

I have yet to pay more than $40 for any of my 360 games, and I have
about 6 of them now. If you look for deals you can definitely get them
cheaper. I haven't even seen one for $70 unless it was a collector's
edition or something. There are quite a few that launched at $50, and a
few at $60, and a couple at $40. I've seen advertised prices for a few
360 games as cheap as $20, and $30 isn't uncommon.

Yes, PC games are somewhat cheaper on average, but it's definitely
possible to stay in a reasonable budget on the 360 if you're a careful
shopper. I would estimate PC games on average are about $10-15 cheaper
than Xbox 360 games, but since it's hard to do an apples to apples
comparison that could vary. The PC certainly has more budget-priced
titles available.

> So take everything into account, and the console is probably a little
> cheaper. But I look at my PC and it is used for more than just gaming too. I
> figure if I'm going to have a PC anyhow, I might as well spend a little more
> and make it gaming capable.

I don't know about you but if it wasn't for gaming I'd be spending FAR
less on my PC than what I do now. I could still use the PC I got 4 or 5
years ago. I will most likely buy another gaming PC in late 2007, but
it just depends. So far there's not a lot on the horizon past the end
of this year to look forward to other than Crysis. There's Gothic 3 and
NWN2 this year, but my system should run those fine.

Knight37

riku wrote:
> Plus, as I said, the console companies themselves don't want to turn
> their consoles to PCs either, unless they can figure out how to make
> some serious cash from people using their consoles as "PCs".

Actually Ken Kutaragi of Sony has gone on record as saying that the
Playstation 3 is more of a computer than a console.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9642

The PS3 is supposed to let you do certain upgrades to it. For one
thing, the hard drive is a standard one and you supposedly will be able
to upgrade it with standard off the shelf drives rather than buying PS3
specific ones.

Sony is definitely going for more than a "gaming machine" with the PS3.
They are trying to make it an all-in-one console/media-player/computer
device for your living room.

Knight37

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:37:03 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:

>>Right. Riku is citing the things that are hurting the PC market as the
>>things that make consoles unlike PC's.
>
>No I didn't, the only problem is your poor reading comprehension
>ability.
>
>Someone (you?) claimed that as future consoles become "PC-like", they
>will get more and more PC-like games (strategy, flight sims etc.) and
>their games will start supporting PC-like control schemes en masse.

I didn't claim that... My claim was that consoles are getting more
like PC's with every generation. When games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3d
came out, only the PC could do that. Then Quake came out, taking it to
another level. The consoles had nothing like that. The closest they
came to saving games was on memory cards.

Microsoft launches the XBox, and in one swoop, we have a console with
the ability to play internet games and save games on a hard drive
right out of the box. It also used many other PC spec parts, some
modified for use in a console. Can you deny that consoles didn't
become more PC like between the SNES, Playstation and XBox?

>"Graphics horsepower" and "broadband gaming" are not what we were
>talking about here. You seem a bit confused.

It's exactly what I'm talking about here. As the consoles become more
like PC's, they start eating the PC's market share due to their low
price and easy "no upgrades" approach. You have your head so wrapped
around niche issues like flight sims and controllers that you can't
see the big picture. If you want to see just how far custom
controllers have been pushed on the consoles anyway, just look at
Steel Battalion for XBox. Its definitely beyond any rudder/pedal setup
Thrustmaster or CH ever put out. 

"knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1155652366.357138.308540@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>> Well, if you take into account the XBOX 360, Cables, and an extra
>> controller, you're looking at $600 for a basic setup. I just sold my last
>> PC, actually used a few components from it in my new PC, and cost 
>> difference
>> was $500. I typically make that sort of investment every two years. And 
>> puts
>> me near the top of the curve.
>
> Xbox 360 Premium is $400 anywhere, I've seen it as cheap as $360
> online. That includes HD cables and 1 wireless controller. Add another
> wireless controller for $50, and a quick charge kit to recharge them
> for $40. That's $490 at most, and is the most deluxe package you would
> need. The Xbox 360 Core (aka Tard) package is only $300 and you can get
> wired controllers for $40. Also buying extra controllers for your
> console is IMHO akin to buying extra controllers for your PC - they
> aren't mandatory.
>
>> This doesn't even take into account the screen. At this point in time, 
>> it's
>> safe to say that even a large majority of people who buy X360's don't 
>> have a
>> high-def display. That'll run $600 to many thousands, depending on the
>> display. Granted it can be used for TV and movie viewing as well.
>
> An HD TV investment is FAR more than just a monitor for your 360. At
> most you should allocate 20-30% of the cost to the 360's cost of
> ownership. It's not even mandatory, Since the system works on low-def
> TV's also (admittedly, a bad choice). And if you are going to require
> an HD TV cost for part of the 360 you should add the cost of a monitor
> for your PC (and that IS mandatory). I typically get a TV once every
> 8-10 years, and a new monitor for my PC every 4-6 years or so.
>
> I can see myself having to upgrade my TV sooner than 8 years,
> considering that they keep fucking changing the HDMI spec and there may
> be a time where my TV won't work with all the latest gizmos like HD-DVD
> or what-have-yous. But I'll be damned if I buy a new one sooner than
> 2011.
>
>> Then take into account the cost of games. Most new X360 games are 
>> $60-$70.
>> Most new PC titles are $40, some $50.
>
> I have yet to pay more than $40 for any of my 360 games, and I have
> about 6 of them now. If you look for deals you can definitely get them
> cheaper. I haven't even seen one for $70 unless it was a collector's
> edition or something. There are quite a few that launched at $50, and a
> few at $60, and a couple at $40. I've seen advertised prices for a few
> 360 games as cheap as $20, and $30 isn't uncommon.
>
> Yes, PC games are somewhat cheaper on average, but it's definitely
> possible to stay in a reasonable budget on the 360 if you're a careful
> shopper. I would estimate PC games on average are about $10-15 cheaper
> than Xbox 360 games, but since it's hard to do an apples to apples
> comparison that could vary. The PC certainly has more budget-priced
> titles available.
>
>> So take everything into account, and the console is probably a little
>> cheaper. But I look at my PC and it is used for more than just gaming 
>> too. I
>> figure if I'm going to have a PC anyhow, I might as well spend a little 
>> more
>> and make it gaming capable.
>
> I don't know about you but if it wasn't for gaming I'd be spending FAR
> less on my PC than what I do now. I could still use the PC I got 4 or 5
> years ago. I will most likely buy another gaming PC in late 2007, but
> it just depends. So far there's not a lot on the horizon past the end
> of this year to look forward to other than Crysis. There's Gothic 3 and
> NWN2 this year, but my system should run those fine.
>
> Knight37
>

Unless you're looking for strategy games, there are tons of RTS titles due 
out over the next six to nine months. And many RTS games now are hybrid 
action/FPS/strategy/tactical. A little of all worlds. 

HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> Unless you're looking for strategy games, there are tons of RTS titles due
> out over the next six to nine months. And many RTS games now are hybrid
> action/FPS/strategy/tactical. A little of all worlds.

RTS is dead to me now.

And any action/FPS/strategy/tactical hybrid I will definitely be
avoiding.

I might possibly take a look at Supreme Commander.

Knight37

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:16:56 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>Just was perusing Gamespot.com and reailzed that two game series that I am 
>quite fond of, Rainbow Six and Call of Duty have sequels that look like they 
>won't be available for the PC?
>
>Rainbow Six Las Vegas so far looks like it is for X360 and PS3 only.
>
>Call of Duty 3 is slated for, get this, the XBOX, X360, PS2, and PS3 but NOT 
>for PC? WTF is up with that? If it out for the antiquated XBOX and PS2, why 
>not the PC?

It may have been mentioned in this thread somewhere that CoD3 is a
quick sequel that is not being developed by "Infinity Ward" (creators
of the first two games). There have been few CoD and MoH games that
were only released on consoles. Only difference is that they are
naming this game CoD3, but that may be because of CoD2 popularity on
XBox360.

The next real CoD sequel from Infinity Ward is supposed to come out on
the PC.
--
Noman