Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. You people are due for a good cry. Don't say we didn't warn you.

Not much of an intro today. So I'll just give you the as-yet-unnamed bastard child that AK and I have spawned.

Balance of Power

Salve Erin, She Who Makes Gamers' Lives Worth Living, Ahhh...will consoles remain consoles? The burning question. What everyone wants to know. Well, before we can guess about the future, we need to go to the past. Back in the late 70's and early 80's, the power of your average console and your average computer were relatively similar. Needless to say, the marketroids for the major console manufacturers had the same wonderful idea - let's make the console into a computer! No less than 3 conversions were designed for the Atari 2600 (and one made it to market!), Mattel Interactive was fined by the Federal Trade Commission $10K/day for several months for not releasing a conversion kit for the Intellivision that they had promised, and the ColecoVision console was designed to be converted into the ADAM Computer (which had the nifty "erase all magnetic media" feature on powerup!) Needless to say, the concept wasn't a total failure, but it never caught on. Then the Crash ended these experiments, and PC power rose faster than console power. Case closed. Well, to put it simply, consoles are as powerful as PCs today. So, the concept of a set-top box is attractive to console manufacturers as the systems are capable of it. But unlike the prior era, where computers were in many ways a hobbyist technology on every level, PCs now are much more of a black box, especially at the software level. Also, the hobbyist nature of computers back them lent them a aura of being a toy, which fit in with being a console. That's no longer there, and would limit the expansion of "toyish" consoles from being serious hardware. So, overall? Well, while making the console into a set-top box might be nice, I think in the long run, it's going to be one of those major failed experiments. Sincerely, AngelKnight, who knows WAY too much about the history of video games.

"Well, to put it simply, consoles are as powerful as PCs today."

Huh?

The Xbox's 733MHz Intel processor reigns supreme among the next-gen consoles in terms of tough-looking numbers, but stack it up against the current Pentium 4 and Athlon XP (clocking at around 2.2 and 1.67 GHz, respectively) and it's hardly a heavy-hitter.

Now, I'm not a big fan of wanton spec-citation as proof of a given system's superiority, but in terms of hardware, I've gotta admit, the PC is more than king of the heap -- it's God, my man. Even disregarding the massive disparities in processing and storage capability between the current consoles and the desktop computer, one's still forced to marvel at its flexibility. It'll be a few years, I expect, before you'll be able to run QuarkXPress on your PS2 and people will be adding "extensive Xbox experience" to their résumés.

No, the PC is the only "serious hardware" out there at the moment -- not to mention the most ungodly expensive and oftentimes frustratingly overcomplicated....

Centralization

Ok, here comes a reactionary but hopefully partially understandable response.. Consoles are for playing video games. If I want to check my email, chat with others, tap on a keyboard, click with a mouse, or suffer from lag while doing any of it, I'll use my friggin PC, dammit. Consoles are for video games. CD, controller, power and reset buttons. That's all you need. The moment I'm forced to play the monthly-charged, online-only Final Fantasy *insert roman numerals* on my PS3 -- complete with hard drive, monitor, and modem -- and get attacked by somebody named "iLuVsqUa11" or "aZnD00D" is the moment I dust off my Super Nintendo and go back to what most console companies are losing sight of: Use it to play games. Yes, I can (kind of) understand the attraction to playing console games with people around the world, but that is far different from what Sony (and to a lesser extent, Microsoft) are trying to do by presenting their console as an all-in-one entertainment system. For heaven's sake, Microsoft immediately had to defend themselves by insisting that X-Box is primarily meant to play games, and would NOT be used like a PC. At least Nintendo was honest enough to say "Hey, we're a video game company. If we can make a console that does the best it can at what it's meant to do -- play games -- then that's what we'll do." I guess in a roundabout way I can answer your question now. As much as I believe it's taking away from what the focus of the industry should be, namely the GAMES, we will see consoles with more PC-like abilities in the future. And may heaven help our souls. - Panadero http://csd.varlew.net

You've captured my own feelings fairly well -- tantamount to my formation as a more or less console-only gamer was my frustration as a kid with the complexity of playing a game on a PC. My family tended to be at least a generation behind in hardware and OSs, and those few titles I actually wanted to play were usually well beyond the capabilities of whatever ZX-81-era box our household was running. Moreover, even more so than now, buying a new machine or even upgrading your existing comp cost a small fortune -- hell, for the price of a math co-processor for your 386 you could buy a fucking NES.

Complicating matters was my unfamiliarity at that time with the arcane methodologies of getting software to run reliably on a shitty PC. What 8 yr-old is going to sit down and single-handedly figure out how to streamline their autoexec.bat for King's Quest when she can just plop down in front of the TV with a Popsicle, stick in a cart and off we go?

Now that I'm old and poor, I'm far too concretized in my console-centrism to fork out hard-earned (or in my particular case, leeched) cash for some whamperdyne video adapter when for that same fistful of bills I could have not one -- but two console RPGs?

All right, so I'm beginning to stray off topic. But the underlying point I'm striving to make is that, in attempting to make a do-all set-top PC, the simple purity of the game console as we know it is bound to be lost in a flurry of gadgetry and unnecessary de-standardization.

I've got the money - you got the stuff?

It seems to me the whole point of any given console was to be the best at offering an enjoyable game experience to any group of gamer, now in the last generation the clear winner was Sony, simply because of their vast variety of titles, they were the only system who catered to everyone. In this generation each system seems to be equally stacked in that aspect so it seems there are two things that could make or break a system, and that would be appeal from a past generation which Sony seems to have that cornered, especially with backwards compatibility, and then there is how well the system expands the gaming experience and the console experience into something new and every system seems to have intent to make that kind of attempt, but the real thing that will make or break each system is there ability to make the systems expanded capabilities affordable, something Sony seems to be dwindling with. I don't know what Nintendo's plans on but as far as affordability they seem to be winning, and if they have any online add-ons it will probably wind up costing about as much as playstation 2 by itself, Well anyway I have a lot more to say but I can see your already getting board...well actually I really can't, that would be creepy but I'll assume you are...so thanks for listening. "A person who thinks the N64 will make a comeback! (I was trying to find a good way to depict the sarcasm of that statement, but I couldn't, any suggestions?)" -Kramer

"...the whole point of any given console was to be the best at offering an enjoyable game experience to any group of gamer..."

Your comment brushes up against a vital, oft-regurgitated facet of PC vs. console wars in general: PC and console gaming -- hardware specs aside -- have evolved into two very different entities with two (for the most part) very different audiences.

Will the hobbyist PC enthusiasts who delight in forking out $400 for the latest and greatest graphics technologies and personally slipping the card into their custom bawx really want to play Counter Strike on some drab proprietary set-top that loudly warns not to remove the case lest you damage the sticker and void the warranty?

Similarly, do console gamers really want to screw around with loading a full-featured OS and disabling all their IM clients just to zone for awhile and play a little AtL?

And now, here to say everything I just said in markedly fewer, more effective words, is Ray Stryker.

The practical upshot

Erin - I can't believe how blindsided people are making themselves towards Kingdom Hearts. For all of everyone's talk on this column of subjectivity and unfair judgement. Oh well, I'm just as bad at times. Consoles may well be reaching the specs of low end PCs, but what has and will continue to make the difference between the two..well...there are a few points actually... First, the type of games developed appeal to two entirely different crowds. Most people own a computer, yet do not play games on it. At least, not go out to the store and buy type games. I know everyone has a freeware Tetris on their comp... Second, the price tag. Why spend 1200 to play games when you can spend 300 to play games AND DVDs? Third, and probably least important. You just get an entirely different feel and experience from a console. Sure, you can network play on a comp, but you can't cram 4 people onto your 17" computer monitor for a rockin Super Smash Bros. match. So in closing, I think PCs and consoles will remain entirely seperate. Besides, the day I see Excel on my PS9 is the day I play GTA 3 for REAL Peace, Ray Stryker...I'm walking to a new dimension, I have left familiar ground..

So, yeah. Merging the two markets is tricky business -- but a little encroachment on the other camp's territory hardly seems a bad thing....

Yada yada yada

I wouldn't say the industry will move to a 'PC' mindset as much as an 'integrated, multidevice gaming experience' one. I sincerely doubt we will ever see an operating system on any machine--even Sony's "computer entertainment system"--that will allow us to edit photos, burn or share a music CD, make movies out of the footage from our DV camera, balance our checkbooks, etc. What we will see is deeper integration between smaller devices and the main console, that will increase the GAMEPLAY EXPERIENCE itself. Nintendo is already betting a rather large section of the farm on the interaction between GameCube and Game Boy Advance. Sony is allowing developers to make use of Sony digital cameras to put your face into the game. Microsoft is encouraging users to rip their own soundtracks. And using hard disks and SD cards, developers will release additional levels, characters, and other great stuff via the console's online connection. These are enhancements that make the overall gaming experience better, and aren't just a novelty like the DC's ability to view web pages or read email on a crappy 640x480 TV screen. It's not a step towards the PC at all--rather, it's simply a natural evolution of gaming. -- Steve, the streetlights, yada yada yada

Basically, you're saying that by incorporating more of these new technologies, the big dogs of console gaming will be able to bring us greater interactivity, more options, and generally more immersive gaming experiences...?

Yeah, I dig. But did the ability to read email on your crappy 640x480 TV screen hurt the DC, as such? After all, people have been known to pay for WebTVs....

Sacrificial buddha

Hail DA Erin, Regarding the perceived gloom and doom of a set-top future, I have this to say: As technology advances, capability advances with it. The current crop of game systems are at the point of being able to offer the features commonly associated with set-tops, while still maintaining a paramount devotion to games. Really, Nintendo had to intentionally design its system to NOT offer the set-top-like features of its competitors. Bold statement, though it doesn't matter much in this generation. Where boxes designed primarily as set-tops cut as many corners as possible, boxes designed as game systems go so far beyond what's necessary to run the set-top features that you're nigh guaranteed top quality. We can all agree that it's easier for a processor to handle surfing the web than it is to render millions of polygons per second, right? And playing games over a modem is proven to be a viable platform for entertainment, right? So why not just toss in the web surfing ability for kicks; in case people are interested, or game developers can find a use for it. If any feature adds more possibilities without hindering the gaming aspect, I'm all for it. Next gen will take us deeper into the fray, and it'll probably rock more than suck. I could babble on about the potential of future boxes, what with multi-layered chip fabrication coming down the pike at full speed (and a fraction of the price). Or stereoscopic flatpanels, FPGAs, retinal projectors, flourescent media disks, and neurophones... However, that'd stray off topic, and lose a lot of understandability as I tried to cut it all into a couple paragraphs. Maybe I'll freelance an article about it. Heh. God save the Queen -- or not, Psiga

They key phrase here being "without hindering the gaming aspect."

Console manufacturers can mix up the formula however they like, add whatever may float their collective boat at the time, just so long as it doesn't get in the way of what I've grown to love about playing video games on a dusty, lo-res television screen while sprawled across my battered couch. Low-maintenance, no-brainer fun at the end of a day's ass-bustin'.

Bells, whistles, and broadband readiness

Hey, Erin. First off, MS and Nintendo are far less interested - FAR less - than Sony in turning consoles into set-top boxes. Indeed, Microsoft is taking the opposite approach, making a seperate appliance with Xbox capacity instead of trying to throw all this stuff onto the Xbox the way Sony is doing with the PS2. It keeps gamers seperated from the tech-junkie types, and makes market for Xbox games higer among people who might not buy stand-alone Xboxes cause they already have another of the systems. Now, onto the meat of the topic. I don't see convergience succeeding. It's been tried several times before, and the public has rejected it each and every time [CD-I, anyone?]. Between the fact that the PS2's addons will be another $150-$200 and the fact that MS is planning on marketing a far different product for that sort of thing and the console market will stay fairly seperate from the PC market for a long time to come. As for Nintendo, the closest thing to this STB idocy they've come to is plans for modems so online gaming can be had on their system. Online gaming does not a set-top box make. The Master Chief hears it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on harikari rock. I need scissors! 61!

Wha...?

MS has in fact expressed its disinterest in turning the Xbox into a set-top PC, but I can't say I follow what you're saying about their not "trying to throw all this stuff onto the Xbox the way Sony is doing with the PS2" when, unlike Sony's console, the Xbox packs its own hard drive and online capabilities. If you're referring to the DVD feature, the Xbox merely requires an additional purchase to be made similarly capable. Ultimately, the two consoles are pretty evenly matched in the extras department -- they just differ in what's sold separately.

Thinly-sliced discontent

Agent E- Technology has always moved towards consolidation. Companies like Intel are constantly trying to cram more transistors onto the microprocessor. Witness the recent trend of PDA/cell phone/internet brower hybrids in the personal electronics market, or even the PS2 with its DVD/CD/PSX/PS2 capabilities. It makes sense, too: it's an old business adage that people want more bang for their buck. If they can buy one thing that functions as five, then they are happy. Unfortunately, that means that console systems will more than likely move ever closer to the set-top PC that all gamers fear. The PS2 already has an add-on modem and hard drive, and 2 USB and one Firewire port for any conceivable number of peripherals, including a mouse and keyboard. It's not a great leap at all to think of an operating system imposed on the whole thing, with maybe a word processing program here, a calculator application there... soon, you've got Windows on your Playstation. This is, of course, a bad thing. PCs and consoles have always been separate for a reason. Consoles give you a very stable platform to develop on and require absolutely no technical knowledge on the part of the user. PCs make up for this lack of stability with their versatilty and modularity (you can't add more RAM to a PS2). Combining the two worlds can only produce one of three possible outcomes: 1) PCs are slowly dragged into becoming more and more like consoles, until the aforementioned versatility and modularity is lost to ease of use. (Very unlikely.) 2) Consoles are slowly dragged into becoming more and more like PCs, until the aforementioned stability and widespread appeal is lost to PC-spawned technobabble. (Could happen.) 3) The two worlds meld into some unholy hybrid that unsuccessfully capitalizes on the unique advantages of the PC *or* the console. (This is the way things are going now.) Any way you slice it, it's a bad scene. -Eightball, doesn't like thinking inside the box, but likes thinking about his boxes

...yup.

Faux fur and rebel tripe

Erin, Eh, I don't know. The idea of a set-top box doens't bother me like it does some other people. Do I think it'll happen? Yes. It seems to be the natural way for come of the larger media corporations to get into the business, and thus the natural way for gaming to become more mainstream. On paper, it looks like the perfect market to combine the entertainment, and tech industries. That alone will increase the lure of a set-top box. Like I said though, it doesn't bug me. Whatever the console industry melds intself into, I'm pretty sure these things will still play games. Subsequently, I'm pretty sure the developers will continue developing, and the gamers will continue gaming. That's good enough for me. -Justin Freeman PS. For those crazy enough to care, I am not the same person whose letters are signed "Justin". That faux-rebel tripe from yesterday compels me to mention that.

Well put.

Doorstop (Vicious, egregious FFX spoilers)

Yo. The reason that set-top PC's are bound to fail is that, no matter how hard they try, they will never have all the capabilities that a true PC has. Witness the XBox. One of the most-touted games out on the XBox recently was the port of Max Payne. Now, don't get me wrong, Max Payne is an awesome game, and I'm sure it looks positively stellar on that great behemoth among consoles, but the point I'm trying to make is that, once I take Max Payne out of that XBox, the console becomes little more than a big green-and-black doorstop. I can just as easily play Max on my PC (with a keyboard and mouse, yet!), and, once I quit the game, I can use this same PC to do my homework or surf the web or E-Mail folks like you to show the world just how dumb I really am. So there's that. Unless a console can provide users with all the features of a PC, they'll never actually be able to simulate one. And even if they do, what's the point? I'll just buy a better computer. -Northwind, who's going to warn everyone right now that the PS contains both FFX and FFVII spoilers. Damn, I'm evil. P.S. Since I'm such a nice guy I'm going to suggest to you a topic for tomorrow. The downside is that, being the rabid FFX fanboy that I am, it's going to be yet another Square topic. Sorry. So there I was, happily checking the latest FFX International news, when I come across a screenie of Yuna, Tidus and Auron fighting some sort of big brown thingie. Yuna, TIDUS, and AURON. Double-yew tee eff? I mean, we all knew the dude in yellow would make a big comeback, but I thought the ending of Auron's story brought a nice sense of closure to his life (or death, as it were). Soooo... what's everyone think of the process of resurrecting dead characters in the name of a sequel? I know that I, for one, would be excessively irritated if Square announced a gaiden for FFVII in which Aeris popped back up from that lake and cried, "It's okay, he missed all my vital organs!" But, of course, that's just me.

I wouldn't actually count on that battle with said brown thingie (whose name is tentatively translated as "Dea Richter") being post-Sending for Auron; rather, I would assume the optional boss has been added within the initial scope of the story/gameplay, much like the Weapons in FFVII.

Anyway, thanks but no thanks - I'm rigidly avoiding Square topics for awhile.

Closing Comments:

For tomorrow I'm going to assign you one of those personal narrative topics that let me get away with murderous neglect as a moderator in that I don't, typically, have anything to add to personal narratives. Unless of course one my friends is telling someone about the time I wiped out my collar bone in the demonstration of my MAD SKILLZ with a plastic lightsaber and leaves out all the details excusing me from any responsibility and ... uh .... anyway.....

Tomorrow I want you to dig out your abacuses (abaci?) and figure for me, if you can, how much cash you've blown over the course of your lifetime in the pursuit of games.

- Erin Mehlos