I use a laptop for gaming, ok? So you can't say they're not gaming machines. They're perfectly competent gaming machines.

You can certainly use them for gaming, but they are VERY costly for that and still won't give you the performance that a cheaper desktop would. In practical terms, you CAN play games on them, just not very well (unless the games are much older) as they are not designed for that purpose.


Mad Cat

Heh, the quad core, SLI notebooks would beg to differ on the second point. The problem is they really aren't laptops at that point, too hot to sit on your lap, they need ventilation too, so a flat surface for the feet is mandatory, and they burn through their battery in 20 minutes anyway, so you can't really use them in such a fashion even if you bring your desk with you.

If price isn't an issue, ream yourself and match the desktops. As soon as they come out with a mobile version of the 9800's, I'm sure some crazy fucker will be selling those in quad core SLI notebooks too.

Laptops are fine for gaming, you've just got to be prepared to pay more for the same specs as a desktop. That'd be expected though, since you benefit from the mobility+reduced size of the laptop. I have a laptop that I use for all my modern games (it's about 1 year newer than my desktop and marginally better performance wise; they both cost about the same price), and it runs things like gal civ 2, half life 2, and dawn of war fine (I'm not interested in playing the latest Crysis, only playing decent games from the last 5 years or so that won't cost a fortune to play, and so far it's had no trouble playing whatever I've given it). Of course it was a job trying to find a laptop that was suitable for gaming when I was looking for them - most would have pitiful graphics cards alongside very fast processors+other specs, meaning they'd cost more than the one I ended up getting, and would run fewer games, while those it could run it'd run worse!

. . . which rarely happens, although there are exceptions. nVidia made the mistake of creating new drivers for a new OS and releasing a new product line all at the same time, which was asking for trouble. Once the drivers are stable, however, there's not much of a need to continue updating them.

. . . and it's not as if the consoles have never had stability problems, especially with the new consoles which tend to run very hot.

. . . and oh, yeah, consoles can't really be upgraded at all. It's not as if you can buy a new video card and make your games look better in a console. The games all end up looking the same, for better or for worse.

Psychoak got a good point on laptops. I've yet to find a good laptop for gaming that rivals any top of the line desktop though. Perhaps there is one for me by xmas 08 with a 'cheap' price tag (a la erathoniel). Yeah right! I expect holes in my wallet.

Art is for the sophisticated eye (no punt intended on the eye though).

Bush can blow anyday about his "mass deception" war. We just wasted 8 years of our resources to take down one dictatorship for another (Bin Laden).

PC games will be around. Its existence will prevail as long there are PC gamers enthousiasts out there. However, PC games quality (decent graphics, gameplay, decent UI, and so on) will truly depend on gamers making the right choices (support games that deliver the kind of quality of the original Homeworld and the few I came to love, just as many of you have among other titles).

I owned my first pc called Commodore 64 and some of you probably remember. Then a few consoles like Nintendo and then Sega systems and marveled at the simplicity of early consoles.

Today, I totally disregard the consoles and stick with PC games that are deemed worthy to play and they are few. It sure helps me to stay in shape because of it. Thanks to the "greed" of corporates trying to make a quick buck on us, gamers.

That's my take on this issue.

True, but you don't need a top of the line desktop to play the vast majority of games. Only Crysis really needs something with that much power.



Agreed. I don't think they will go away, I simply think they will change. Perhaps a bit more indie, perhaps a bit less professional, but that really doesn't bother me that much. I don't need more games like Crysis as long as they are fun.

"Art is for the sophisticated eye (no punt intended on the eye though).

Bush can blow anyday about his "mass deception" war. We just wasted 8 years of our resources to take down one dictatorship for another (Bin Laden)."

Wtf? Hello stoner, nice to meet you...

What is this Bush bashing about?

My laptop wasn't that expensive. Only a little more than the desktop.

Well you can't have mods on consoles so pc games are here to stay.

It's questionable whether this is a useful benefit to most PC gamers. If size and mobility aren't important to you, you'll do MUCH better with a desktop, period.


Mad Cat

Yeah, I had a middle-of-the-line laptop and I was unhappy with its battery life. I'm planning to grab a XP EEE: tiny, almost no gaming potential, but good battery life, SSD, and upgradeable to 20GB HDD with SD and 2GB ram.

I just use the mobility. I rarely use it when it's not jacked in (yes, I do use landline over wi-fi).

Size and mobility could possibly be important. A laptop would be useful for LAN parties, where you don't want to lug a large desktop to another location, or it could be useful if somebody has a job that requires a lot of travel. I've also seen people playing games at college between classes (and sometimes even in a class).

But yes, if mobility isn't important and power is important, then a desktop is certainly the best choice.

The flaw in your argument is that graphics is the only bottleneck in a good game. Sometimes complex sims require lots of computing power that is not just graphics oriented. The more complex a game also, the less likely it can work on consoles which tend to focus on streamlined user interfaces.

However, I would agree that less complex games are more popular these days. Most people don't or can not spend the time to play more involved games, so therefore limit themselves to shooter, arcade, and board games which they can get into and out of very easily. So relatively speaking, as computer gaming penetrates more of the mass market there are fewer game geeks in the mix, and therefore a relative loss of the traditional game market toward simpler types of games (even if graphically complex) which can easily be handled by consoles. But that does not mean that the hardcore gamers cease to exist, they simply are a smaller part of the market. But since they are an avid part of the market, they are a reliable share. Therefore I think you will never see PC games "die" completely, just bottom out to whatever percentage they make of a more diverse market.

Also, if someone is on a tight budget and they had to decide between a PC or a console, the PC will win every time. Consoles only perform one function (gaming), PCs many. There is no competition. And if you recall, most of the world is struggling just to get their first PC and consoles are likely out of the mix in those areas for years to come.

I have never been interested in a console and probably will never get one as I dont like having extraneous hardware cluttering up my living room. If I play games I play in a completely tricked out room designed for it using the best hardware which is a full-on desktop. Now although I like very complex sims, I also like the simpler shooter games also, but there are plenty of existing PC shooters so that I don't have to get a console for the few console-only games that are out there.

Just because you can have fun games with fewer system requirements does not allow you to conclude that fun games with higher system requirements don't or won't exist. Moreover, given that PCs are much more versatile, consoles by design will never replace them. So given a choice, people will always pick a PC over a console unless they can afford both.

Heard anything about these so called "next generation" consoles? I am all ears err eyes. Damn, I miss the days frying mages brains with my mentalist.

Quite true: If a household has neither a PC nor a console, then the PC is very likely to be bought, because it is needed for a lot of tasks that are completely unrelated to gaming. The console is a pure entertainment device, and is usually bought for the entertainment center. It's usually considered much more of a luxury item than a PC is.

Note that I said "entertainment" not "games" - the Playstation is often bought to watch movies, as both the PS2 and PS3 are actually very good DVD (or BluRay) players.

Very much so. I can show you computers that can't run roguelikes. It's pathetic, though. ADOM, GH1, and ToME (actually, decent performance on ADOM and ToME, though it's not smooth).

 

Yes, arguably, but the PC would be slightly more expensive for gaming functions than a console. Granted, I don't believe in having an extremely powerful computer (except for showing off).

That's what I'd do with a PS3, watch movies as well as gaming.

If you look a next gen consoles or more expensive consoles like the high end PS, they already are approaching the cost of PC. Basically they are making themselves pointless, because by definition, they are more expensive. Why buy a high end console that is basically the cost of a PC but with half the functionality?

Cost is cited as one of the reasons for why PS3 sales were so crappy. Sony eventually had to lower its cost to differentiate it more for those people deciding between a PC or console.

My own take is that, if it weren't for the cutthroat marketing of consoles, they would simply be niche items, basically family luxury toys. By restricting popular game titles only to a console platform, basically they got the crying-kid crowd, the "gotta have it" consumers, to buy it no matter the cost. That bootstraps the market so now a lot of people who bought this expensive toaster have to continue to pour money into titles for it to continue to justify its existence.

I heard for example Halo has been cited frequently as the sole reason for the massive sales of Xbox in recent years, and why they continue to put off making a PC version of each Halo chapter for several years after the release of the console version of the game. That way they entice PC buyers by making them feel "left out". The correct interpretation is that it was not the console that was necessary, but the game. Console sales are driven by aggressive marketing, not intrinsic value.

Also, if people "can't program a VCR" and needs a convenience appliance, then they likely are not going to be into complex high-end gaming, either. By definition, the more features pushed onto an appliance, the more complicated it is going to be and therefore, more like a PC.

That is another reason cited in news article for why PS3 sales were poor at the beginning. PS3 is for high-end gamers who had no problem dealing with PCs, therefore they picked the latter since the PS3 was almost the same cost. Everyone else looking for a console went for the WII because it was simple and cheap. Halo fans bought the Xbox.

As long as PCs exist they will be used for gaming, since by definition, a console can not replace a PC. If it can then it is a PC. The notion of a PC-appliance has been pushed for over a decade now and it has never gotten off the ground. Consoles are a secondary purchase, not a primary one. Smart people everywhere can see that and buy accordingly.

I have read rediculous posts on message boards, but this is one of the top ten I have ever had the displeasure to read.

Saying computers are dieing, and giving a very poor example, just makes me laugh. Like people buy PCs to play Guitar Hero...ROFL!

Guitar Hero 3 would have played well on a PC if the greedy company that decided to port it would have taken the time to port it correctly. They were just out to make a fast buck and shaft the consumer.

Entry level gaming rigs can be bought under a grand real easily. Some starting rigs are in the 500 to 600 dollar range already. All a person would have to do is do a tiny bit of research in computer magazines to build something, or have a friend build, that would play most games. In todays computer building, it is very easy as long as you know how to tie your own shoes.

Don't even get me started on consoles. I buy those for my kids. My son's 360 already burnt out once. What a piece of garbage.

You get what you pay for, so move out of mom's house, get a job, and earn some quality entertainment. Not only that, but buy a real guitar. They are more entertaining to learn even if you can't play like Hendrix. Not having a life besides playing console games is called laziness.

The spelling is "dying". Did I ever say PC's were bought to play Guitar Hero?

It's called Frets on Fire. There's already an open-source version that can run on any PC.

The 360 is a defective product. It's like parachutes. When they fail (which they do alarmingly frequently), they ruin your day. But they're still good enough.

Excuse me, I blog. That's enough of a life. Not to mention my wiki's I go to.

I couldn't care less about playing the guitar, I used Guitar Hero as an example of the gross carelessness taken by game developers. I'm a real musician, by the way (ok, so I'm a lay member in the pianist cult). I'm not arguing Guitar Hero is more fun. It's called an example. It doesn't have to be a game you even like.

Easier than tying your own shoes, actually. But you need more money to do it. Also, sometimes you get crappy hardware configs at the store and you need a PC within a week. Some of us upgrade from smoking craters.

I will take it, that you are not familiar with that even a PS3 is a fully-functional computer, but, that is not you fault it is still not advertised/marketed as such. For instance, the PS3 already has word processors, spreadsheet, rendering, simulation, web browsing, and other applications. The issue is absolute lack of consumer knowledge of these facts, i.e. pointing to the earlier it's not really marketed as such.

In addition, there are many research organizations now networking together PS3s into supercomputers for their needs, instead of the insane priced Intel supercomputers.

Not to mention, the price of computers is a major reason why consoles are thriving, and furthermore created a market of bargain-bin personal computers such as the "Eee PC" between $100.00-$400.00. Roughly the same price range as consoles, they offer basic computer functionality (web browsing, word processing, etc.), but cannot do much beyond that.



Most consumers did not buy into a new console, like the PS3, due to lack of library and price point. When there was an already established and well-entrenched XBOX 360 presence with a decent-sized library and price point at the time. In addition, I hardly see how a PS3 was the same cost of a PC, when the equivalent performing PC at the time was well over $1,000.00~ (excluding premium builder fees from major retailers and-or the cost of a Blu-ray player at the time). I wont even bother to explain how much of a price difference was between high-end gamers as you put it, because it's just silly in comparison. However, the story is overall different today.

The current stance is, there isn't much of a line left between consoles (XBOX 360 and PS3) and what we still consider the PC. The console is well-positioned to takeover a lot of the tasks of a PC, at a very-appealing price-point. In addition, the next-generation we might see step-upgrade options (like swappable GPU/GPGPU cards) for console computers.

I doubt we will see a definite end to PC gaming in decades, but the evidence points to an erosion of the market. To some what the market might be like in ten years, will be considered dead in their eyes and to others it will still be alive.

I keep forgetting it is! It can run Linux (probably others, but it's just made for Linux. Plus it's not usually one's only computing rig.

You can actually set it up to run different OS's on it. I don't remember how, but Ubuntu has a thing on it.

Imagine

Imagine the sleek console powerful or more so than ever before being built like cellphones, almost perfect, simple to use, and fits the needs of the masses (people who don't give a shit how to learn how a pc works, or what's in it).

That day will come. It's just a matter of time. And how quickly technology has evolved to this day, it's a certainty.

I can already see PC gurus being put in dusty museums near you.

Got a PS3 today, and I can already see its potentials.

Now I see why the crowd would rather go for a console than a PC. Some say that PC is so "easy" to use. Well, it's true to someone who took the time to learn it all, but not to someone who never owned any piece of technology (TV, Cell, Microwave, you name it)



I also own a Quadcore system with all the trimmings OC 3.6,but it just dawned on me that my quad will be scrap faster than the console simply of the fact that consoles will be PC or I should say super consoles. The question now is how to minimize the costs of building a console, making sure it does what a pc can do, and turning a profit (games, applications...).