Yeah, I liked this article. It could have used more editing, but I think there are some good points raised. My only real beef is that it's basically a defense for the PC, and while those points are good I think the true scope is a bit wider. I'm going to quickly go point by point.
#10 -- Mega-launches like the 360’s give a false impression about the so-called “death of the PC
Um... I guess so. These launches are just all hype. Really, how much do you think Microsoft paid G4, Spike, and MTV to run huge 360 segments to coincide with the launch? It's all an advertising campaign. The PC pretty much just gets ignored because it doesn't have launches like this. Though, to be fair, the Doom 3 release did generate lots of hype, and did have lines out the door. We might actually see some bleed over of this type of buzz from console to PCs on big titles like that, but never on hardware.
#9 -- The production and publishing model used by the 360 is ruining development companies, stifling creativity, and squeezing out the little guy.
This goes for all of the consoles, but as noted is a result of larger media trends. There really wasn't a game that truly pushed the envelope in 2005, not even Shadow of the Colossus. There really wasn't anything in 2004, unless you wnat to count, I don't know, Katamari Damacy. the only technology that has a chance in the near future is the Revolution, and that's, well, it's Nintendo. 'nuff said.
#8 -- The 360 will do nothing better than the PC.
Absolutely true, however, there will be downloadable content on the 360. I highly doubt it will be at the same level as the content that was available for, say Morrowind, but we'll see. Most likely, it'll be limited to skins and Microsoft-approved maps for games like Halo. Maybe a few tracks for racers. This is a step, but yeah, the PC has much more potential than even the uber-connected 360.
#7 -- Consoles like the 360 create the lie that consoles = affordable while PCs = expensive
This is the other side of the coin that people like Matt and I have been arguing. First, PC's aren't that expensive anyway. Secondly, you can't compare an $800 gaming PC to a $150 console. Compare tech to tech. The 360 is $400. The PS3 will be at least that much. The price premium for a gaming PC -- that is, what it costs beyond the base price of a functional PC, a tech appliance that everyone has anyway just like a TV or cable box -- is no more than that, and easily less. So let's kill this red herring once and for all; PC gaming may be more complicated than console gaming, but it's no more pricey.
#6 -- You don’t have to wait in line to buy a PC.
No, but you either have to build it yourself or deal with annoying, brain-dead retail drones.
#5 -- The 360, by and large, appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Absolutely. And this goes along with #9. Certain games are sure sells, like Halo and sports titles. Those are the games that are not only going to be pushed, but also copied by anyone else trying to get a toehold in the market. The rest of us will increasingly be left out in the cold with nothing to appeal to us, elbowed out of the very market we helped popularize.
#4 -- No World of Warcraft? No City of Villains? No F.E.A.R.? No Guild Wars? ‘Nuff said.
Well, different platforms are home to different styles of gaming. The PC is the MMORPG platform, and will be for the forseeable future. But consoles are better for other types of games. It's a tradeoff, and people will play the platforms that have the games for them. The real problem here is that every console developer and their fanboys try to convince us that their platform is the only one you need, that it has every game you'll want to play. I mention that I like the Dragon Quest series and someone tells me that the 360 will have an RPG with character deisgn by Toriyama -- that doesn't make it Dragon Quest. Sorry, but I can't play Gran Turismo 4 on the XBox, PC, or Gamecube. I can't play Civ 4 on the 360.
#3 -- The flood-tide of crappy, used console games for the Xbox and 360 are squeezing out other kinds of titles at resale chains.
This is an interesting dilemma. I've never been an early adopter myself, so I've always taken advantage of cheap, late prices and used games. I didn't pay $500 for a PS2 at launch, and I didn't pay $300 or $200 for one. I paid $130. Now that the 360 is out, maybe I'll get an XBox for $100. Availability of used games is important for me, but if this casting off of "old tech" ultimately eliminates that availability, that's a problem. Most people can't or won't spend $200 a month on the hottest games, brand new. As gamers, this obsolescense is a bit puzzling to us, I think. I know most of us still have our old consoles, some going back to the NES and Atari systems of our youth. I still have a Sega Saturn and Dreamcast, and you know what: they still work! They still play games! Those games are just as fun today as when they came out.
#2 -- Shooters still blow on consoles, no matter how good their processor/graphics/sound are.
Yep. However, I want to see the Revolution controller before we really pound the final nail in this coffin. back in the day, I used to play Doom 2 with a gyro mouse, the kind you can actually hold in the air and tilt and turn to move the cursor. It was the coolest gaming experience ever, and the Revolution controller reminds me of it.
#1 -- I’m sick and tired of the hype
Pretty much already mentioned, but yeah. We're moving too quick. We can safely say that the PS1 was bumping up against its hardware limits by the time the PS2 came out. But the PS2 is being phased out while they're still useful; there are games that can still surprise us technically, like God of War. Shadow of the Colossus and Dragon Quest VIII show us that the PS2's technology is enough to not only realize new concepts (Colossus) but also ploish up old ones and turn them into the final product the designers always wanted (DQ8). Obviously the Gamecube and XBox still have a lot of life left in them, but now that the 360 hype is here, the current gen is dead. It's all about the new consoles now.
Atti-ca, Atti-ca, Atti-ca!