Original post by Wavinator I didn't see mention of one of the most frustrated design principles popular in console gaming as a point of comparison: Unlocking. This is one core reason why I'll never adopt console games except in passing. Many console games seem to fear open-ended or freeform gameplay, forcing you to solve puzzles or perform certain stunts just to get access to basic features or options (like special cars in Midnight Club). In the Sims, for instance, IIRC you had to do missions just to start the more freeform mode.
Yes it is a very common thing in most console games. I suppose it appeals to people who like small rewards for a great deal of work. But I wonder also if this feature is not merely a method to extend the lifetime of the game, since new content can't be added. I can't help but wonder if this will change once downloadable content and the ability to add mods to games because a part of console games? Consider Halo, how much greater would the popularity of the game be, if you could download mods like you can for halflife?
What I primarily mean is the fact that most of us NEED a PC in our homes anyways (NEED may very well be a relative term, but the computers are there nonetheless). Perhaps their other uses don't require the capabilities needed for decent gaming, but there is SOME mitigation of cost involved there. So we have two seperate systems coming at it from two ends of the spectrum, each with it's pros and cons, and for many people the PC is a necessary purchase anyways. With each new generation, both sides are trying to maximize their pros and minimize their cons, and with each new generation both sides are only becoming more like the other.
PCs are more technically challenging (less accessible), but they are far more user friendly today than the days of Windos 3.11. They are becoming daily tools for more and more people as well, so the learning curve is a necessary obstacle regardless of gaming (and as a result, greater efforts to reduce this learning curve are being made as well)
Consoles used to have limited multiplayer, but online capabilities are becoming a standard for these as well.
PC costs are dropping with each year. High end systems are one thing, but I've found mid-range specs work absolutely fine for me even with games like Doom3 and HL2. Sure, I can't run them at ultra-high resolutions, but I'm still getting excellent visuals at very playable framerates. And the only truly additional cost really amounts to a decent video card and bump in total system memory.
Compatibility issues with PCs are becoming less and less significant as well. Plug & Play is approaching it's original intent with each passing year.
We've got consoles with hard drives now. Keyboards and mice are readily available accessories. There are adapters to use console controllers on PCs.
With the increased availability of Hi-Def tvs, consoles also no longer suffer from the lo-res visuals, but there is a flip side of this with the PCs as well. It's becoming more and more common to adapt your PC for display on a Hi-Def tv without having to give up the visual res essentially needed for all other PC usage outside gaming. With wireless keyboards and mice, we're just a packaging stage away from a comercial "den inhabitant" (to use Oluseyi's term). And as far as aesthetics go, such a commercial package can EASILY provide a design that perfectly matches your Onkyo, Sony, or other high end home theater system.
To summarize: What I really meant when I said "consoles will NOT replace PCs until they can do everything a PC can do, at which point they've become PCs themselves." is that, with each passing year PCs in general are becoming a more prominant home appliance, not less prominant, for reasons completely unrelated to video gaming. As long as there are PCs in the home, there will be a PC gaming market. Until consoles can do everything PCs can do, there will be PCs in the home. PC gaming will never be doomed. Will it ever surpass console gaming in sheer sales? That's an entirely different argument.
