Michael Dell at the Austin Game Conference
by Elizabeth Harper 
{ Sep 8th 2006 at 8:00AM }
Elizabeth Harper is covering the MMO-heavy Austin Game Conference for Joystiq and our WoW-obsessed friends at WoW Insider.
Michael Dell stopped by the Austin Game Conference briefly on Thursday afternoon for what the day's schedule described as a "fireside chat." And after sitting through the chat, I have one important question -- where was the fire? Well, while I sit here and grumble about false advertising, you can read on to find out some of the topics Dell touched on in this Q&A session -- which focused on the PC's place in the gaming industry, and why you should buy a PC instead of a console.
The PC as the best gaming platform:
Michael Dell stopped by the Austin Game Conference briefly on Thursday afternoon for what the day's schedule described as a "fireside chat." And after sitting through the chat, I have one important question -- where was the fire? Well, while I sit here and grumble about false advertising, you can read on to find out some of the topics Dell touched on in this Q&A session -- which focused on the PC's place in the gaming industry, and why you should buy a PC instead of a console.
The PC as the best gaming platform:
- Dell is pushing for additional software support for their hardware features and working with developers to try to provide users with the best experience possible. Specifically mentioned were multiple core processors and multiple monitors/widescreen monitors.
- Microsoft Vista is a great platform, and "as an operating system, take[s] better advantage of a lot of the hardware features."
- The "next big thing" for PC gaming will be taking advantage of major hardware features such as multicore processors.
- The advantage a PC will always have when compared to consoles is that it can constantly be on the leading edge of technology. PCs are constantly improving, while consoles are static after their release.
- Consoles are really just PCs with a specific set of hardware.
- On the PS3: You should be able to buy a PC for less than the cost of a PS3 - and it could be shipped today.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
saboola @ Sep 8th 2006 8:10AM
ZOMG Joystiq is the lame! I woke up today just to read about Michael Dell and this is all you got?!?! LAME!*
*Apply salt liberally
Allstar @ Sep 8th 2006 8:18AM
"You should be able to buy a PC for less than the cost of a PS3"
Yes. And what could you play on it with that cheap video card? Donkey Kong.
Lorben @ Sep 8th 2006 8:49AM
Actually, getting a decent gaming machine for less than the price of a PS3 isn't unrealistic. I’ve been able to find a refurb Optiplex GX620 with a 3Ghz+ processor and a gig of ram for under $400. If you get a mini tower (not small form factor) it’s got an open PCI-E slot. Add in a midrange card like an ATI X850XT, which you can find on newegg for around $100. Put that together and you’ve got a desktop that can play any game on the market for around the price of a core PS3. That’s not including any shipping costs, but it would still be under $600 with shipping.
stafford @ Sep 8th 2006 8:58AM
Is it easily possible to build a PC capable of playing Crysis for 100 to 300 pounds (with upgradability), buying parts off ebay, a fraction of the UK PS3 cost of 425 pounds.
Crysis Minimum Requirements:
* CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
* Graphics: Nvidia 6600 GS/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
* RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
* HDD: 6GB
* Internet: 256k+
* Optical Drive: DVD
* Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP
Lorben @ Sep 8th 2006 9:05AM
Well hell, if we're considering what you can built yourself, I put this computer together for a friend a couple weeks ago. The prices might have changed since then, but should be pretty close. All pieces bought off newegg.
Roswill black case with 450W power supply and 1 120mm fan - $40
Socket AM2 AMD Athlon 64 3800+ $112
ASUS AM2 socket mobo - $84
1GB G.Skill DDR2 800 RAM- $97
Samsung dual layer dvd burner - $33
Western Digital Sata2 80GB Hard drive - $44
Radeon X850XT $100
XP Home $90
Total: $600 on the nose
HardwareGuy @ Sep 8th 2006 9:11AM
Granted, no one has seen a live PS3 in action, but it's pretty much impossible that a $600 PC can have nearly the graphics quality of a PS3.
JJ @ Sep 8th 2006 9:13AM
Ah but see there's 2 price points for a PS3, 500 and 600 i'm sure you could put together 2 different pc's for under 500 and under 600, sure they'd be budget PCs and probably couldnt play a lot at optimum settings, but you COULD do it.
Or, you could just do what i did and slap some new stuff into your existing PC and spend that 500/600 on some new fans, a new video card, case mods with cool neon lighting...etc.
saboola @ Sep 8th 2006 9:18AM
If you build a 600 dollar PC, you know exactly where you will be at in five years, a web server with a GPU. With a console, you know that in five years time you will still be able to run the most current stuff out for that console. For long term investing you cant beat console gaming.
FimShady @ Sep 8th 2006 9:21AM
missing: one Blu-Ray drive. I defy you to build a system with one of those for under 600 bucks. I know, I know, "BLEW RAY AM TEH DETH 4 SONEE" but the fact remains this is the cheapest you're going to get one of these (what that will mean for the quality of the drive remains to be seen).
If all you're after is gaming, yeah, craft your own box. Most people either aren't smart enough or can't be bothered. Another lame swipe at Sony (quite the festering pile you guys have going here).
Hell, drive the masses away from Sony, I welcome it. Every person you convert is one less unfortunate soul I have to step over to get my ps3 on launch day (enter the slew of posts RE: the delay of launch in Europe. I'm not in Europe, I don't give a rat's behind).
Vandell @ Sep 8th 2006 9:21AM
Graphics and processing power required in computer games is increasing phenominally, while the majority of gamers aren't gearing up for it.
Sure, you can somewhat inexpensive-aly ($600~) upgrade your computer in order to play some of the new games that are out there, most PC owners do not know how to do this.
Most game developers don't realize this is one of the main reason why Blizzard does so well - they research their market and develop games based on the average statistics of the computers that they own. That, piled on great replayability, solid, fun and original gameplay, and unique storylines and mythos, creates a golden game.
As much as people would LIKE to believe, the majority of gamers don't own beastly computers.
Though, it makes me wonder why Homeworld didn't do so well ...
Ben @ Sep 8th 2006 9:34AM
The main advantage of a console over a pc is that when you buy a console game, you know it will perform as it is meant to. With a PC game, it is easy to find a game that will have difficulty on your machine after two years without upgrading. A console can last at least 5 years before an upgrade is needed so no stress for the game lover that doesn't know much about hardware!
striderhayasa @ Sep 8th 2006 9:39AM
But one thing Mr Dell seems to forget is the stability of console gaming. I buy a console, I buy games for that console, 99.9 percent of the time, that game is going to run without a hitch. That's a guarantee that PCs can't claim.
If your rig doesn't meet minimum requirements, sorry...if your graphics card is ass...sorry...if you don't have the latest version of Direct X....sorry....not enough RAM....sorry Even if you turn the effects and quality down to match your rig, you can be left with what looks like a 64 game, blurred textures, fog and still have framerate issues.
Who needs the hassle? Besides, when was the last time anyone played a Virtual Fighter 4, God of War, Ninja Gaiden, Zelda or Metroid Prime on a PC? Console gaming wins unless you're playing strat games or FPS and that's quickly changing.
cringer8 @ Sep 8th 2006 10:42AM
lol @ fanboy foolishness hahahahahahaha
"ZOMG, YOU HAFT TO UPGRADES TEH CARDS!!11!"
Console gaming is a *joke* compared to PC gaming. PC gamers have been playing in HD for *years*. Online gameplay has been on the PC since the SNES days. The games cost less. The controls are faster, more accurate, and offer more options. And you don't need a BluRay drive since you install the game on your HD (no load times).
You do *not* have to upgrade your graphics cards and RAM as often as some as you might think (or falsely claim). 2 gigs of RAM cost next to nothing last year and will be plenty for another year or two.
The only people who buy "current gen" hardware are elitists that like "keepin' up with the Jones'." It's not necessary, just something to brag about.
Cry Havoc @ Sep 8th 2006 10:45AM
Ben: And in five years, the games that the consoles are making look like total crap compared to the PC games that are coming out at the same time.
In five years, do you think -anyone- will be talking about the amazing power of the 360 and PS3? If they aren't buried by the Wii, these systems which have been touted as graphical powerhouses to sell will be completely overshadowed by a low-end PC with dedicated graphics, to say NOTHING of what a gaming PC will be like in 5 years. The games you're playing on your consoles by then will be very second rate (from a visual standpoint).
So yeah, buying a console is cheaper. Unless you don't have an HDTV. Then you're out AT LEAST another $500 for a 100 lb TV that you can't take with you. A quality HDTV will drop you about 2,000, which, hey, costs more than my gaming laptop did without the console. With my laptop, I can go anywhere to game. And it's 8 pounds.
get over it @ Sep 8th 2006 11:13AM
Dell, a PC manufacturer... of course he's going to tell you the PC is the best gaming platform.
I'd rather sit on my couch in front of my big ass tv with the surround sound and wireless controller than in front of a computer at a desk in my bedroom/office/basement.
sure, you could build a technically superior pc whos specs "totally pwn joo!!11!!!111!" and any console out there.
however, it's the ease of accessibility that a console provides to any average person from four year old timmy to grandma betsy that make it a better GAME platform.
it's right there in the living room next to the tv, you pop a game in and it works with absolutely no need for the user to have any idea how it works or how it's put together. it's that accessibility that has the gaming market shifting from the pc to the console.
Z @ Sep 8th 2006 11:14AM
So Summa is not fired?? Better be...
Oh and Michael Dell stinks too. What has Dell ever done for gaming?
The ZeroCorpse @ Sep 8th 2006 11:27AM
Try finding the good games on a PC. Hell, lately, try finding ANY games for the PC. All the big box stores cut down the amount of PC games they'll carry, and since EB merged with Gamestop, their selection has dwindled.
As for you guys saying you could build a gaming rig for $600-- That's not what Mr. Dell was saying. He was saying the AVERAGE CONSUMER should be able to buy a good gaming PC for less than that, and he's just plain wrong. Joe and Jane Consumer don't know how to build a gaming rig, unlike us uber geeks on the Internets. Joe Consumer barely knows how to INSTALL A GAME or UPDATE DIRECT X. He certain doesn't know how to upgrade a video card, install a new hard drive, or manage all the compatibility problems in PC gaming.
And Joe Consumer's gaming PC will be full of spyware, adware, viruses, and suffer from registry rot within six months of purchase. I know YOURS won't, but again, you're an uber geek. Joe Consumer is the guy who pays the Geek Squad to "fix" his computer when it starts to run slow.
Seriously, I'm impressed with your mad cmpter skllz, but you're idiots if you think Joe Consumer and his wife will be picking up a Dell to replace the GameCube for little Jimmy and Sally. They won't. It's not practical. The supply of games is pathetic, the maintenance is a pain in the ass, and the cost of ownership continues long after purchase of the rig itself. It's too much hassle when compared to an under-$250 Wii or a $500 Xbox 360.
I do all my work on my computers (which is why I sold my last custom-built gaming PC for bargain price and switched to Mac) and I do most of my gaming on my consoles. I haven't looked back. So far, there hasn't been any game I've been starving for on PC that isn't available on consoles. There are two games that I liked recently that are exclusive to PCs- City of Heroes and World of Warcraft- but I gave up the MMORPGs because they're for idiots with money to burn, and they ultimately go nowhere. I don't need that.
Consoles will dominate by 2020. PCs will be relegated to the same kind of gaming as mobile phones, but ultimately be seen as a tool- not a toy.
Steve Roger @ Sep 8th 2006 11:30AM
Mr. Dell is in denial about gaming consoles. But, of course, he is: every console purchased in this next generation is one less PC sold for Dell.
His claim that the PC is the best gaming platform is further proof that he hopes to sell us sand in the desert.
I mean come on, nothing, nothing is more convenient than popping a game into a console, grabbing a control and hopping into the fun. Sorry, but PCs don't work that way. They might in the future but the game consoles have a huge, I mean huge head start. Further, PCs aren't idiot proof. I might let a kid drop a disc in a console but stay the hell away from my $3000 XPS.
Face it, Mr. Dell, the console gaming market is sizzling. No amount generalized tech-speak will change that. You had a great idea back in that dorm room, but you lost your great ideas once you hit the board room. Face it Mike: PCs are not game consoles as much as game consoles are PCs.
You effort to corner the gaming market, including next generation console gaming business is a day late and a dollar short. That claim that that a $600 PC will perform like $600 game console is silly. First, not in this life bucko and second, well, Mr. Dell the games I play are not being made for the PC they are MADE FOR THE GAME CONSOLE MARKET, AND YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE CONSOLE GAME MARKET. Microsoft may have XNA in the pipe, but 27 million PS2 card carrying gamers around the world won't be making that change. I am sorry but gamers would rather fight than switch. It ain't like microsoft is going to stop making xbox 360s and hand over that business to you. Microsoft is not trying lose the console business. They are trying take it over. But the fact is that Microsoft is just making even more console gamers.
Does it seem like I am biased? Well, you are correct. I am tired of Dell's lies. First, that they have the best prices. They don't. Second, their customer service is a nightmare. Have you ever spent more time in your life searching the worst customer service websites ever made. Have you ever spent as much time navigating through convoluted phone menus.
Lastly, when you get a human being. Don't even get me started with that. And it has NOTHING to do with their country of origin or that English may be their second language. The trouble starts with the fact that they are poorly trained and read from a script. The trouble is that the training manuals and the scripts are made by a thousand monkeys sitting and typing at a thousand dell computers all (all these are U.S. monkeys) who operate under their trainer, Michael Dell's theory of customer service: if we make it impossibly difficult they won't come.
jcmschwa @ Sep 8th 2006 12:04PM
Considering that most people have a PC anyway (as most of you probably have to use one to comment on this site - unless you use the campus or public library pc) wouldn't it be better to spend the money of $400-600 console plus $400-500 cheap computer (it's this expensive because you know you want to play at least some of the games coming out now, even if not on highest settings) and just buy a better computer? they're so much more useful.
steve @ Sep 8th 2006 2:07PM
"6. Granted, no one has seen a live PS3 in action, but it's pretty much impossible that a $600 PC can have nearly the graphics quality of a PS3."
That isn't entirely true. For what it's worth, the NVIDIA chipset in the PS3 is close to a 7600GT PC part in specs, only with half the throughput (128-bit bus vs. 256-bit, or something like that). On a PC, that's a $150-$200 videocard.
The difference is that console programmers can target that single card, and don't have to deal with the overhead of a complex operating system. That means they can throw oodles of effects without having to worry about them also working on some suck-ass lower-end card.
Also, PC games typically offer options to run at higher resolutions than most console games, even 720p ones. 1680x1050 is now a fairly standard resolution for a PC desktop (20-inch widescreen LCD; now going for about $300-$400).
I try to play most of my games at 1920x1200, which the PS3 will support (close, 1080p is 1920x1080). But I'll go out on a limb and say the best looking PS3 games will be locked at 720p. There just isn't enough memory bandwidth to handle 1080p for all but the most graphically simple games (think Katamari Damacy) or ones with narrow rendering areas (like race games). A big, wide open 3D game? No way.
Matt @ Sep 8th 2006 12:15PM
To try and argue that the PC is a "better value" than a console is purely stupid. To also try and argue that a PC would, as a short-term investment, be "better" than a console is also false.
PC gamers, those who know their hardware, they are one step ahead of the upgrade game, they know they are in it for the long haul. Of course, they also know their games will look monumentally better than that of any console, from purely a resolution standpoint.
At this excelled aesthetic quality comes a price, however, and it would be easy to argue a nice, solid, baseline system running anywhere from fifteen hundred to two thousand dollars, and argueably roughly three to five hundred dollars per year thereafter to maintain.
So from a purely economical standpoint, consoles are a far better value. But let's not kid ourselves about graphical quality here. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion looked worlds better on the PC than the Xbox 360 at the time of it's release, and being on the retail side of the industry, I can truthfully say that Oblivion sold a lot of 360's. Heck we fought our Microsoft representative for I think four monthes to keep Oblivion in the demo kiosk as opposed to the generic Microsoft 360 demo disc.
When Crysis comes out, if we were to assume a simultaneous release on PC/360/PS3 (obviously no where near confirmed) then we would clearly see the graphical superiority on the PC. However, many would argue two grand versus six hundred (or four hundred), and I imagine they would all be correct. At the same time... consoles play just games (and music, and voice chat) whereas PCs are full-fledged machines with almost limitless capability.
So let's not try and even attempt to draw comparison... the arguement will turn so double-sided, so quickly, that they'll need nuclear munitions to stunt the growth of such tard-dom.
LongshotX @ Sep 9th 2006 2:22AM
Wouldn't it be a shocker if say Dell entered the console market? Hmmmmm....
cringer8 @ Sep 8th 2006 12:33PM
@ ZeroCorpse
If you're going to argue about the "average" consumer, then you have to take into account the kinds of games that consumer is going to play. Is Grandma Betty or little Timmy in the market for high-end FPS's? Of course not. An 8-year-old is going to be on CartoonNetwork.com playing Flash-based games or buying “Lego Land” and Grandma is going to be playing card games or puzzle games off of RealArcade. You do *not* need a great computer for their games. Even a $400 Gateway would suffice.
That's the beauty of PC's; you can get one customized to your needs. With a console, you are buying *everything* no matter what. Should a grandmother pay $400 for an Xbox if all she wants to do is play puzzle games? That would be silly. It's overkill.
If Mr. Dell is trying to sway console gamers (read: hardcore gamers) to the PC world, he understands that those gamers know a little bit more about computers than the "average" consumer you speak of.
Steve Roger @ Sep 8th 2006 12:35PM
I agree with Matt. PCs and game consoles are apples and oranges. Just like PC gaming people know their equipment so do the console gamers. It is fun to follow the developments in PC gaming just like it is with the consoles.
People who argue that one is better than the other are just wasting their breath. Each has its attractions. You can't duplicate a console gaming experience on PC even with emulation. Nor can a console dupicate a PC gaming high.
Claiming a PC is a better overall value is better left up to Mom and Dad and not Michael Dell.
I have a feeling that a lot of users of this site have both a pretty good PC and a at least one gaming console.
If you can afford both and enjoy both more power to you.
Serious Kriss @ Sep 8th 2006 1:25PM
#17 : "Try finding the good games on a PC. Hell, lately, try finding ANY games for the PC."
Here you go :
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24145969
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/show_msgs.php?board_id=314159267&topic_id=24525221
And the stores don't cary many PC games (in the US at least) because we buy them online instead.
Lionel M. @ Sep 8th 2006 4:27PM
Just published some video of Michael at yesterday’s Austin Game Conference on Direct2Dell. Check it out here: http://www.direct2dell.com/one2one/archive/2006/09/08/2617.aspx
JohnAdams @ Sep 10th 2006 1:20AM
His name was Michael Peri I'm not sure how the spelling of the name goes, but that's definitely his name.
I think the interviewer maybe asked him about it numerous more times once dell intially mentioned something about some 21 year old.
Part or full Jamaican if I'm not mistaken impressive nonetheless would love to meet this genius.
jc @ Sep 11th 2006 11:10AM
I am pretty much in the same boat as ZeroCorpse. My PC use at home as pretty much died off (except for some surfing on my iBook).
All of my gaming is done on the console. I upgraded to a GrandWega and have zero regrets. I think consoles strike a good balance for entertainment value, but to say one is better than the other is strictly subjective.
A real benefit of consoles over pcs (no one seems to mention) is multiplayer. Four people playing GRAW or NHL on one screen is not possible on the PC... and to me, having friends over to play is important.