"No Real Need" for Consoles

[gutbub]

While I could make my PC capable of doing all the things consoles can do, I won't. Why? Well, I love my PC, but unlike my PC, I can pack up any console, and take it to a buddies house. Also, if they added all the stuff to a PC, then they would completely over charge all the people who couldn't do it themselves. I had some other reasons, but I'm too lazy to try and remember them.

[agenericperson]

I think the end of consoles is coming soon. It won't be long before people realize that that new TV set that they bought can be hooked up to their PC. People are going to realize that its stupid to wait outside in the cold for a box when you already have a box that can do more at home. Why waste time and money on redundant hardware that does less?

PC's have more games. PC's can do more. PC's have more inputs (controllers, keyboards, etc.). I even have a 360 controller I use for some games. Consoles are expensive 4-5 year machines. PC's last longer. PC games are even cheaper. Sure it will take a generation or two but it will come. Consoles are starting to behave more and more like PC's. To me, that's a sign of the end of consoles.

Plus, let's face it, PC's trump any console in terms of homebrew.

[NOCHUCK]

I don't think console gaming will die anytime soon. I'm alittle bias because I much preffer consoles to PC for gaming. There are three schools of people 1. console 2. PC 3. Cross platform. I use the PC for RTS games(starcraft, C&C) and recently Spore which is a pretty good game. I would rather sit down and pop a game in my 360 with my wireless 360 controller and maybe half to install a patch on the disk to make the game play(rarely but NHL '09 made me) and jam out with out having to worry about drivers or upgrading my hardware or installs for that matter althoigh that is the lesser of the problems.

On another point I know many gamers that have no clue what to do with or on a computer. they want the plug and play. it's a matter of convenice and I can't really blame them for it. I know I'm not the only person who knows someone thats technologicaly challenged.

I do agree with agenericperson that once people realize thier hi-def tv has a VGA port and can be used as a huge kicka$$ monitor that they will use the PC more for gaming though. I know I enjoy it more

Sorry for any typos but I've been drinkin some bombas of guinness at the bar this evening.

Edit:
I almost forgot that I think console gaming is better for when you have people over hangin out to play multiplayer games on expecially sports, fighting and split screen shooters. Unless of corse you have multiple monitors or a bunch of usb game controllers you hook up but i'd still much preffer good old fashion offline hangin out with your friends at the house gaming on a console than a PC, that just the opionion of one Chuck though.

[jedikevin20]

the problem is that consoles are becoming a glorified computer. We are not to far before you really can't tell the difference between the two. Every new console looks more and more pc like that eventually there will be no need. Granted though I see companies milking people into PC/Console systems in the future. My college now has a pure computer lab running linux on ps3s as the tower. Its weird to go in there but it just seems like we being tricked by corporations with this "PC and console" debates.

[wind_mill]

You can apply the same logic to PC's IMHO. Consoles now support blue tooth keyboards and most USB keyboards and mice (mouses?). With the PS3 supporting linux officially, you can get your basic web browsing, email, and even Openoffice fix right in your own living room. So basically there is "No Real Need" for pc's either.

But people still have both a PC and a console. Why? Because some people find consoles better for gaming, yet find Pc's easier to do schoolwork or office work on.

Ofcourse there are always those games which are better on PC's..

[mistac]

Consoles are expensive 4-5 year machines. PC's last longer.

If you comply with FITS recommendations then PC's have a 3-4 year life cycle, and that's for business use. Most of the PC gamers I know are cycling through hardware within 18 months to keep up with the latest PC games.

Besides, you can't just pick up a PC game and head round to your friend's as easy as you can with a console game. You need to hope his hardware specs are as good, or better, than your own and that the game is compatible with his system. that's far too much messing about. That would never have been acceptable in the Streetfighter 2/SNES days.

[osgeld]

i dunno where your getting your "for business use" stats from

its not uncommon to walk into a place and see ~8 year old machines operating perfectly fine for their simple word oriented tasks

and servers get even older, we run on a hp system that was last upgraded in 1997, why even bother upgrading that, the stupid thing handles its load with power to spare

and again i run a 3 year old computer, the only new game i havent been able to run was COD4 cause it wants a dual core, and if you really want to get down to it, ive really had the machine longer than that, in 05 i just dropped in a 80$ chip and some ram

[mistac]

i dunno where your getting your "for business use" stats from

From the official procedures I have to follow as IT manager following the FITS recommendations in one of the UK's largest computing educational facilities.

FITS stands for Framework for ICT Technical Support and it is based on the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL), the most widely accepted approach to IT service management in the world.

http://www.itil-officialsite.com/home/home.asp

I agree it's not uncommon to see 8 year old PCs running "simple" word orientated task, but we're talking gaming rigs and as there is no recommended strategy for those I use the business PCs, assuming a lesser specification, as an example to highlight my point.

[phrozenfeonix]

Yeah, in the company that i'm one of the IT for, we run our servers almost until they die, then we dump them into a VM, and keep running them. Probabl the only reason we go to VMs instead of just repairing the servers, is to save electricity, manage our physical footprint (rented rack space in a data center), and reduce company overhead. There's no such thing as a "useless old server" in a company. And as for the situation of the clients... well... let's just say our technology isn't what you'd call bleeding edge, and we're one of the leading communications companies in the Albertan Oilfield industry. ONLY if the machines -need- to be fast, and a format wont speed it up any, will we replace the hardware, ever.

tl;dr mistac is mistaken, servers never grow old, and it's not uncommon for client machines to be ballpark 1000-1500mhz.

[mistac]

mistac is mistaken, servers never grow old, and it's not uncommon for client machines to be ballpark 1000-1500mhz.

I'm afraid you're mistaken, I didn't mention servers. I was talking about the RECOMMENDED life cycle of a business PC as laid out by professionals in the business. The point being business PCs are usable, for longer, than gaming PCs, assuming no upgrade takes place.

My original post was referring to a comment made that consoles were useful for 4-5 years and PCs last longer. PCs do last longer but in order to play the latest games they will no doubt require some upgrades, video cards, ram, even Operating System, etc and the cost can be easily equal to if not greater than a new console.

For anyone familiar with the BBC sitcom, Only Fools and Horses, the gaming PC is the electronic equivalent to Trigger's broom.

Hopefully I've made myself clearer this time and no one will feel the necessity to jump on me because of a misinterpretation between what's recommended and what actually happens.