The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What do you think is the main difference between PC’s and consoles?
…
Well, I think it’s the fact that PC’s need upgrading if you want to be able to run certain programmes, play certain games or run programmes and applications quicker.
With consoles, you can play any game without needing to upgrade. You just stick the cartridge or CD in and play.
Hang on a second though... Didn’t Nintendo bring out a certain piece of hardware last year? Something that added an extra 4 MB of memory to the N64?
Yes, they did. It was called the Expansion Pak. Originally it was just intended to be used to boost the graphics on certain games. Expansion Pak enabled I think was the official term. But wait a minute. Weren’t a few games brought out that NEEDED the Expansion Pak to run properly? Again, yes there were. Perfect Dark, Turok 3 and Zelda: Majoras Mask. These three HAD to have an Expansion Pak if they were going to run fully.
But what’s going to happen in the future? We’ve all ready seen an upgrade being provided for the N64. Is this going to become the norm among consoles as it is with PC’s?
What’s so bad about upgradable consoles becoming more frequent? Can you imagine what would happen? The developers will be making more and more games that require upgrades. The cost of all this hardware would put A LOT of people off. I know I can’t afford many peripherals let alone games, let alone hardware! Some people either wouldn’t be able to afford the new hardware. This makes it unfair on those people as they wouldn’t be able to play all the new games, I for one, find that a tad annoying.
Of course, there is a plus side in all of this. The games themselves would be improving graphically and also in the respect that a lot more features could be added in to the games, extending their lastability and enjoyment factors. Seeing as the games are the reason why people buy consoles in the first place, then the fact that they would be getting better and more enjoyable quite quickly is in now way a problem.
And then there’s the consoles themselves. How are they going to accommodate all this extra hardware? Nintendo obviously had all ready planned the Expansion Pak because the hole in which it’s placed was all ready there.
It’s fine if the developers of the consoles think ahead about what they’re going to create so they can put the nooks, crannies and special places on the console beforehand. But what if some bright spark suddenly comes up with a great idea that the company really want to use but haven’t got anywhere on the console to put it?
The obvious answer to that would be to redesign the console and bring the re-modelled ones that can accommodate the new hardware. That means though, that the players are going to have to buy a whole new unit just to be able to play certain games!
Upgradable consoles could well be the future for the gaming market, but they could also be it’s demise.
RBS
…
Well, I think it’s the fact that PC’s need upgrading if you want to be able to run certain programmes, play certain games or run programmes and applications quicker.
With consoles, you can play any game without needing to upgrade. You just stick the cartridge or CD in and play.
Hang on a second though... Didn’t Nintendo bring out a certain piece of hardware last year? Something that added an extra 4 MB of memory to the N64?
Yes, they did. It was called the Expansion Pak. Originally it was just intended to be used to boost the graphics on certain games. Expansion Pak enabled I think was the official term. But wait a minute. Weren’t a few games brought out that NEEDED the Expansion Pak to run properly? Again, yes there were. Perfect Dark, Turok 3 and Zelda: Majoras Mask. These three HAD to have an Expansion Pak if they were going to run fully.
But what’s going to happen in the future? We’ve all ready seen an upgrade being provided for the N64. Is this going to become the norm among consoles as it is with PC’s?
What’s so bad about upgradable consoles becoming more frequent? Can you imagine what would happen? The developers will be making more and more games that require upgrades. The cost of all this hardware would put A LOT of people off. I know I can’t afford many peripherals let alone games, let alone hardware! Some people either wouldn’t be able to afford the new hardware. This makes it unfair on those people as they wouldn’t be able to play all the new games, I for one, find that a tad annoying.
Of course, there is a plus side in all of this. The games themselves would be improving graphically and also in the respect that a lot more features could be added in to the games, extending their lastability and enjoyment factors. Seeing as the games are the reason why people buy consoles in the first place, then the fact that they would be getting better and more enjoyable quite quickly is in now way a problem.
And then there’s the consoles themselves. How are they going to accommodate all this extra hardware? Nintendo obviously had all ready planned the Expansion Pak because the hole in which it’s placed was all ready there.
It’s fine if the developers of the consoles think ahead about what they’re going to create so they can put the nooks, crannies and special places on the console beforehand. But what if some bright spark suddenly comes up with a great idea that the company really want to use but haven’t got anywhere on the console to put it?
The obvious answer to that would be to redesign the console and bring the re-modelled ones that can accommodate the new hardware. That means though, that the players are going to have to buy a whole new unit just to be able to play certain games!
Upgradable consoles could well be the future for the gaming market, but they could also be it’s demise.
RBS
Page:
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Don't understand the control system comments. Both have an
> unlimited variation on their controls as neither is locked into one
> controler. Consoles typically have pads which are great for
> platmormers, driving games, sports games and fighters. The typical
> PC keyboard and mouse combo is light years ahead of control pads for
> RPGs, FPS and basically any tatical games.
Then again you can get
> a keyboard and mouse of your console and pads for your PC...
It is just that, Consoles play the games really well by using only one type of controller, still having multiple types they are all nearly identical. Whereas a PC game are rarely compatible with any of the over expensive controllers, Each PC company should make a set of their own nearly identical controllers that will work with nearly every game, to give a better gaming experience and make games eaiser to use because I often forget what A does or J does in a game!!
> Don't understand the control system comments. Both have an
> unlimited variation on their controls as neither is locked into one
> controler. Consoles typically have pads which are great for
> platmormers, driving games, sports games and fighters. The typical
> PC keyboard and mouse combo is light years ahead of control pads for
> RPGs, FPS and basically any tatical games.
Then again you can get
> a keyboard and mouse of your console and pads for your PC...
It is just that, Consoles play the games really well by using only one type of controller, still having multiple types they are all nearly identical. Whereas a PC game are rarely compatible with any of the over expensive controllers, Each PC company should make a set of their own nearly identical controllers that will work with nearly every game, to give a better gaming experience and make games eaiser to use because I often forget what A does or J does in a game!!
M16 wrote:
> Let me be the first to say, good topic RBS. Well written (typed)
Thanks Dan!
and
> I found the arguments for and against upgrades very
> interesting.
:-)
If the future of gaming is "upgradable
> consoles", be prepared to have a very thin wallet.
I know!!
*Dizzy at the thought*
:-D
> Let me be the first to say, good topic RBS. Well written (typed)
Thanks Dan!
and
> I found the arguments for and against upgrades very
> interesting.
:-)
If the future of gaming is "upgradable
> consoles", be prepared to have a very thin wallet.
I know!!
*Dizzy at the thought*
:-D
Let me be the first to say, good topic RBS. Well written (typed) and I found the arguments for and against upgrades very interesting.
If the future of gaming is "upgradable consoles", be prepared to have a very thin wallet.
If the future of gaming is "upgradable consoles", be prepared to have a very thin wallet.
Don't understand the control system comments. Both have an unlimited variation on their controls as neither is locked into one controler. Consoles typically have pads which are great for platmormers, driving games, sports games and fighters. The typical PC keyboard and mouse combo is light years ahead of control pads for RPGs, FPS and basically any tatical games.
Then again you can get a keyboard and mouse of your console and pads for your PC...
Then again you can get a keyboard and mouse of your console and pads for your PC...
Yeah sort of, consoles that can play and unlimited amount of games and have the best controller system, compared to a unit that can play only a limited amount of games, has a crappy control system, but excells in the areas of graphics, sound, and games! yea, they could be seen as that!!
Upgradeable consoles = PCs.
Mayb e I didn't make it clear, I DON'T want upgradable consoles to come into play in the gaming industry
Consoles are highly tweaked (for want of a better word) to get the most out of what's in there i.e. you're using 100% of all components potential. PC on the other hand have bottle necks, so that having 4096MB of RAM won't be much use if you have a 486 processor (overly simplified example, but you get the idea). This would mean that console upgrades would probably need to be modular i.e. numerous things are upgraded at once. This would mean great expense. Also, how do you upgrade a processor? You can't really - it would need replaced, and the same goes for graphic cards, sound and other things that are beyond my understanding! Granted, you could simply stick in another processor - but this is notoriously difficult to code for and would almost definitely result in almost zero games supporting the upgrade.
It would also require a feat of console design unseen to actually create a piece of hardware that could support such upgrades. This would raise the console cost as extra development time would be needed and extra gubbins would have to be stuck in the standard console to allow for the upgrades to be done easily (think about the number of people that paid for an unnecessary RAM expansion bay in the N64 as they never used it). Do you really want to raise the cost of consoles to you and is there a developer brave enough to ignore their competition and sell a console at a higher price?
If you start introducing upgradeable consoles you won't be getting the same bang for your buck as it will be pretty much impossible to tweak the architecture to get the most out of the components. It may also result in a wider need for patches in console games - something we clearly don't want. Most PC patches are needed to deal with (or get the most out of) strange or new hardware combinations. At the moment this isn't necessary for consoles as everyone is on a level playing field - upgradeable consoles would probably change that.
What would happen with new consoles? Would it actually restrict new console production, as the console producers would be even more reluctant to drop a console that people may have spent a fortune upgrading? Games developers would also hate it. They want to make their games available to the widest possible market and this would probably be the "standard" out of the box set up. Would this result in games not really supporting the upgraded consoles? Unless the majority of the console owners adopt the upgrades - then it probably would. At best, the developers would have the game optimised for the "lowest" console so you wouldn't the best performance out of your expensive upgraded console.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for hard drives, modems, light guns, fishing rods etc. None of those actually effect how the console runs. An 8 Gig hard drive is essential identical to an 80 Gig hard drive as far as interfacing with the console is concerned. This is an easy “upgrade”, but one I sort of never hope to see. Do gamers really want to have to keep shelling out on bigger hard drives? The average gamer owns maybe 20 games per consoles – why would they ever need a hard drive above a Gig? I have loads of games’ save data on my PC and it’ll never even get close to pushing on for a Gig of data. Yet Sony will gladly sell a 20 Gig hard drive. They’re playing a dangerous game, as they want this room to be used to store music and basically help the PS2 take the place of the PC. History tells us (and Nintendo will gladly remind you) that such multimedia consoles do not work as it is neigh on impossible to develop a console that is not only affordable (like the PS2) but truly multimedia. There is a reason why a good PC will cost £1000 but a PS2 only £280. But I digress…
When it comes down to it - do we want to sacrifice the world's only true plug and play gaming?
It would also require a feat of console design unseen to actually create a piece of hardware that could support such upgrades. This would raise the console cost as extra development time would be needed and extra gubbins would have to be stuck in the standard console to allow for the upgrades to be done easily (think about the number of people that paid for an unnecessary RAM expansion bay in the N64 as they never used it). Do you really want to raise the cost of consoles to you and is there a developer brave enough to ignore their competition and sell a console at a higher price?
If you start introducing upgradeable consoles you won't be getting the same bang for your buck as it will be pretty much impossible to tweak the architecture to get the most out of the components. It may also result in a wider need for patches in console games - something we clearly don't want. Most PC patches are needed to deal with (or get the most out of) strange or new hardware combinations. At the moment this isn't necessary for consoles as everyone is on a level playing field - upgradeable consoles would probably change that.
What would happen with new consoles? Would it actually restrict new console production, as the console producers would be even more reluctant to drop a console that people may have spent a fortune upgrading? Games developers would also hate it. They want to make their games available to the widest possible market and this would probably be the "standard" out of the box set up. Would this result in games not really supporting the upgraded consoles? Unless the majority of the console owners adopt the upgrades - then it probably would. At best, the developers would have the game optimised for the "lowest" console so you wouldn't the best performance out of your expensive upgraded console.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for hard drives, modems, light guns, fishing rods etc. None of those actually effect how the console runs. An 8 Gig hard drive is essential identical to an 80 Gig hard drive as far as interfacing with the console is concerned. This is an easy “upgrade”, but one I sort of never hope to see. Do gamers really want to have to keep shelling out on bigger hard drives? The average gamer owns maybe 20 games per consoles – why would they ever need a hard drive above a Gig? I have loads of games’ save data on my PC and it’ll never even get close to pushing on for a Gig of data. Yet Sony will gladly sell a 20 Gig hard drive. They’re playing a dangerous game, as they want this room to be used to store music and basically help the PS2 take the place of the PC. History tells us (and Nintendo will gladly remind you) that such multimedia consoles do not work as it is neigh on impossible to develop a console that is not only affordable (like the PS2) but truly multimedia. There is a reason why a good PC will cost £1000 but a PS2 only £280. But I digress…
When it comes down to it - do we want to sacrifice the world's only true plug and play gaming?
Anyone else?
OK!
Page: