If you buy a game for your computer you need to make sure it runs on your current hardware. Still if you meet the requirements you are sometimes disappointed by the actual performance you get which leads you to endless trails of software and driver upgrades, operating system optimization, hard drive defragmentation and other maintenance chores. In the end you might end up having to upgrade some hardware to be satisfied. Even worse, since the computer is most likely used for other things there is sure to be some malfunction sooner or later due to viruses or other causes.

A gaming console on the other hand is a dedicated piece of software and hardware which is streamlined to play the games you buy. Reversely the games are streamlined to run on exactly that machine. This is optimal both for buyers and developers. The games require less testing before released since only one (or a few) possible machines will be known to run the game. When you receive a game it will be tested for exactly your conditions and will require no effort on your part to experience it the way the developer intended it.

More than this most game machines are so simple to operate, you insert a game and you play. As of late some machines have endeavored to become complete entertainment machines and started looking more like HTPCs than gaming consoles and in doing so have become more complicated. Maybe this is yet another reason for the success of the currently simplest machine on the market, the Wii, which still have on-line connectivity but in a much more modest form than it’s cousins PS3 and X-box 360.

In conclusion, when I want to play a game I want to relax. Give me something simple!

What Gamespot wrote…

First sign of trouble is the amount of money being invested in Xbox360 and Playstation 3 by Microsoft and Sony respectivly. The length of time these machines have to be on the market to become profitible are much longer than their predecessors.

The new trend of downloaded content will have an impact on local stores carrying games, why should they keep selling games when games are bought on-line and consoles often sold at a loss? Also games will be played “on-line” much like the MMO games of today, with the bulk of the processing being done on a central server.

Technology is making new games even more realistic and the need to keep up with technology will favour PCs over consoles. While we wait for the next leap in techonology the game developers must focus on other characteristics of the game in order to win an advantage.

And now for my take on it…

This is what they said… but let’s reflect a little. They seem to predict the future of the gaming market by pure extrapolation of our current situation. Did any of them glance at Nintendo? Did anyone notice that Nintendo acctually put up a much “lesser machine” but still beats the crap out of the two others (in units sold at least)?

I have no figures at all but my guess is Nintendo is winning this battle easily while Sony and Microsoft are pouring in money to get second place. Why? Because Nintendo did not just extrapolate, they innovated! One thing did the articles at Gamespot get right, advanced graphics technology makes developers have to look to other solutions to set them apart and that’s just what Nintendo did. Is that a bad thing? As I remember we had the same situation back in the 8-bit days, only then we only had crappy graphics and the price went to whoever could invent something cool to do with it.

As I’ve said before the game market probably needs to be re-evaluated because new techonology and better graphics isn’t the only thing we want… honestly for myself I’d much rather have a great game than great graphics.

The argument about downloaded content carries some weight, game retailers might fear this one… but why stop selling consoles? People would need them to download the content and the retailers make money on selling the consoles, it’s the manufacturer that often subsidies them.

Playing games on-line through a service is currently almost only being done on PCs (mostly MMOs). This is however an advantage that might become a turningpoint for consoles if used correctly. As I remember one of the great advantages of the old Nintendo cartridges was that the cartridges where upgraded as time went by but the console stayed the same, by allowing games to “upgrade” the console the Nintendo probably lasted much longer than it would have with a non-evolving media. Having the whole Internet as media must mean that, if used correctly, you only need to have a machine capable of displaying the graphics and handling input and leave the rest up to the “super computer” at the other end!

The days of consoles might still be numbered, maybe some hybrid “home entetrainment machine” of some sort will take it’s place. Call it a PC if you’d like (because it will much likely have better resemblance to a PC than a console), however I do not believe any of the given arguments are enough to pursuade me of this change in the future.