A challenge to the PC master race

[Hairless Mammoth]

What's bad about PCs? Let's see.

Spoiler: big ol' list

DRM- Some Publishers still think the moment they release a DRM free game, all of the company's assets will be stollen right out from underneath them. Most games/clients aren't bad about it (usually) but when they stack DRM[footnote]Ubisoft, get rid of Uplay on all of your Steam listings already.[/footnote] or the DRM harms your system, it's a definite negative for the PC version of a game.

Cost of Entry- If you plan on playing more than ancient AAA games (if they will work easily on new hardware) and most indie titles, it will be more expensive than a console. Though, with some good research and asking experts online (like here) you can get something that outperforms the consoles for maybe $200 more (at least in some parts of the world). But, sales happen often on most distribution platforms, so a patient PC user will have more than enough games in short time.

Knowledge/Experience- If you barely ever used a PC, using one for games, even the overpriced big name models, will require a lot of learning over the years. OS settings, installs, controller drivers, troubleshooting all require knowing the basic ins and outs. You can learn as you go, but any problem could mean you're not playing a game until it's fixed.

Console Exclusives- They are still titles that make it to mutliple console brands, but not to PC. Or, the PC port takes a long time. (Of course, some cases that's a good thing, like Arkham Knight just demonstrated.) Though, it's not as bad today since the two consoles with third party support are built off PC hardware.

Bad Ports/optimization/control schemes- I'm not bashing consoles. I'm bashing game makers that release something that runs like crap, doesn't have basic graphic options(at the very least give us resolution and full-screen/windowed mode options), and doesn't allow re-bindable keys/buttons (especially if they chose horrible key placement to begin with). If a game does play better with a controller, I will gladly use a controller.

Digital Market- If a physical disc of a game is sold today, it either locks to your Steam, GoG, Origin, or Uplay (or some other paranoid publisher's DRM system) account when you install it, or it's just a redemption code that does the same thing. Is a game you want only available on some distribution system you don't have an account to? Well, get ready to come up with another username and password to keep track of. Physical console titles at least can be traded or resold. That doesn't happened too often with PC games. And for both console and PC digital titles, some things you might like could get patched out of a game you own. (Old GTA sound tracks are the recent talking point for that.)

TV Connectivity/Single Screen Multiplayer- With controller support on PC rising, the universal use of HDMI, and streaming boxes, both problems are not as prolific as they were 10 years ago. But some people still have trouble dragging the big tower close to TV. If my tower wasn't so close my TV, I wouldn't take advantage of that ability very often. Also, many games don't support local multiplayer. Some really petty devs/pubs don't even support LAN anymore

I enjoy my PC for the most part...except for the constant crippling knowledge that, at any time, a part could fail and it'll bring the bulk of your experience with media to a grinding halt.

Well, the good thing about the big towers is an equivilant part in a console, laptop or proprietary form factor PC[footnote]Screw you, Apple, for your stupidly hard to repair towers and all-in-ones, and for re-popularizing all-in-one PCs in general.[/footnote] is hard to find and costs a lot more than a standard PC part. If my GFX card went out, I could finally get the upgrade I can later use in a newer build. Whenever, something proprietary breaks, I'm spending hours looking up parts online and cross referencing model/part #s to make sure I'm buying right thing, or I'm dealing with a customer service reps, paying to ship my device to their repair centers, and hoping they don't warrantied send stuff back unfixed because of an error or lazy lying repeir tech (which did happen to a Sony customer recently).

Any electronic could fail at any time. A few years ago, my PS3 blu-ray drive just quit, without warning, right when I finally wanted to use the machine after months of sitting there. I was ordering a part off Amazon when I just wanted to play Jak 3 for the first time.

One of the huge advntages of consoles everyone used to talk about was supposed to be idea they were much simpler and straightforward IE no bugs in thier games (more or less), no patches, no need for this that and the next thing extra to be able to play them, no hardware problems and so on.

That "it just works" thing.

That's dead.
[snip]

I agree. Consoles still are simpler to use and easier to develop for than PCs, but they are blurring the line. Hard drives and updates offer tons of PC benefits, but they also bring with them some of the issues.

And there's the fact that internet connectivity for both PC and consoles allow publishers to push out half-finished games (which sell well because everyone preordered them) and patch them to a "finished" state. Buggy games on consoles are more common than back when things couldn't be fixed remotely.

 

[Remus]

Steam sales /thread

But seriously, some of the control schemes for PC games are so obtuse that I have to plug in a controller to not cramp up whenever I try to sprint! M+KB is not always the best option. Have you SEEN the PC controls for Elite: Dangerous? To explain it would require a 50 page manual all its own.

 

[DerangedHobo]

All have their strengths and their weaknesses

And the console's ability to hide them is very impressive. You know, stealing No Man's Sky and all... YOU HEAR THAT SONY? I WANT MY RECORDS BACK, I WANT MY FUCKING RECORDS BACK.

But that is easy:

1. You need to watch at least 1-2 youtube videos to learn how to work with it (in a technical capacity).

2. EA

3. EA, as well as every other company lining up to fuck PC gaming in the ass.

4. Games which are held ransom by consoles (Because fuck, if they didn't have that, who'd buy them?).

5. Certain games can have a 1 in a million bug which means it won't work, because reasons.

6. The inability (or just, outright apathy) of publishers/developers to actually make a decent PC port and then the consumer getting ridiculed/blamed for it like me not eating shit is my fault (but I'm not bitter or anything).

7. MMORPGs.

8. Cleaning, while it is easy, takes time and resources.

9. I assume this is the same for consoles but don't let anyone tell you that the online PC gaming "community" is anything but shite. Absolute, bottom the the barrel.

10. You have to pay through the ass for Microsoft's newest OS if you want native game support (Or use Linux if you want Steam/Wine support).

11. Macs, essentially console PCs, with all the downsides of both.

 

[truckspond]

But none of this matters because I can have a gun that shoots cars in GTA V.

He's not kidding. http://www.nerdcubed.co.uk/videos/nerdcubed-mods-gta-v-the-portable-pile-up/

 

[Creator002]

1. This is a personal flaw, but often (not always) my computer will freeze or the screen will go blank. I've determined it's the graphics card (every error log says it's the GFX card's hardware), so that needs replacing and I don't have the money right now.

2. The fact I need to upgrade every 2-5 years in order to stay at "top range" performance.

3. I can't return a disc-based game.

4. The numerous and non-descriptive errors can be a nightmare.

5. Most games play better with a controller anyway (especially 3rd person games).

6. Every PC game, I need to fiddle with the graphics options. Either the game isn't using my hardware to its full potential or it's using too much. Often, my resolution is set to lower than what the screen is (1920x1080 - A standard now).

I could probably think of more later. Will edit if I do.

 

[wings012]

The only time I bemoaned gaming on a PC is the lack of console exclusives. Which is hardly the fault of the PC to begin with. Controls are fixed by getting a controller and crappily mapped PC controllers is the fault of the devs, not the platform.

Crappy ports, also the devs fault. Not the platform. You can say Arkham Knight all you like but eh, there's a bunch of other ports that work just fine.

Upgrading isn't an issue anyway, games tend to get pegged to their console counterparts anyway for better or worse. If you got a machine that can handle a contemporary game of the generation, then it should last the generation barring hardware failure. Just time your computer purchases more wisely.

I suppose the PC does need more maintenance but eh, it's not so hard.

As a dedicated gaming device, a console would have better cost. I do use a PC for more than just gaming so the PC's price is not a fault for me.

Consoles used to be simple and be plug and play(oh my PS2, how I adored thee) but those days are gone.

 

[infohippie]

The only time I bemoaned gaming on a PC is the lack of console exclusives. Which is hardly the fault of the PC to begin with. Controls are fixed by getting a controller and crappily mapped PC controllers is the fault of the devs, not the platform.

Not when half the reason you don't game on consoles anyway is due to disliking controllers. Every PC game should have (A) fully remappable keybinds, and (B) good mouse and keyboard support.

 

[Vigormortis]

I'm a bit confused by some of the drawbacks I'm seeing listed.

* Needing to upgrade every 1~2 years. - Why the hell would you ever need to do that? Unless you're some glutton for 'da best grafix evar', you have absolutely no reason to upgrade every few years. And even then, if you are such a glutton, you can still likely play the newest games at the higher settings without having to upgrade. (few devs push the boundaries of their engine tech)

* Maintenance. - This always sounds as if people are asserting that the consoles never fail. I've had far more consoles fail than I've had PC hardware die on me.

Really, this just boils down to each users level of care and random chance.

* Cost. - This one is purely subjective on a case by case basis. I have a great gaming rig and a sizable library of games, yet I've spent less on this particular PC over the course of my ownership than a friend has over the course of his ownership of his Xbox One. I also know someone who's spent over three grand on her PC, and another who's spent a pittance on his PS4. There are many factors that play into this one, so it's hard to really assert which will cost more in the long run.

* Bad Ports. - These hit consoles too, honestly. There've even been cases wherein one console version of a game is intentionally worse than another console's version.

Are they more common on PC? Probably, they certainly get more press, but they aren't really exclusive to PC.

* Exclusives. - I've never understood how this is a negative for PC. Sure, consoles have exclusives, but so do the PC platforms. So, unless you want to argue that, say, the PS4 is 'inferior' or 'flawed' in comparison to the WiiU or Xbone because it lacks a Mario or Halo game, then I fail to see how "exclusives" is a point against PC.

Don't get me wrong. Like any platform used for media consumption, PC has its disadvantages. (some far more egregious than others) It's just that I'm always so baffled when I see some of the presumed negatives.

=========================================================================================
As for my personal downsides to PC gaming, I can think of at least a few:

- Transport. - Beyond a laptop, there's no true easy way of transporting your gaming rig for use in other locations. It's practically an 'event' just trying to lug a decent rig to a friends house.

- Backwards compatibility. - While I can technically play many, many older games on my current machine, it can be an absolute pain in the arse getting some to run on newer hardware and operating systems. So this one's always been a positive and a negative.

- Couch co-op. - Pretty self explanatory. There simply aren't enough quality split-screen/local co-op titles on PC. Consoles have them in abundance. 'Nough said.

There are two main downsides of PC gaming for me:
1 - We don't get all the weird and fascinating Japanese games that Sony get, or most JRPGs.

This is definitely a drawback to PC gaming, if these sorts of games are what one is after. Thankfully this finally seems to be changing. More and more Japanese developers and publishers are starting to recognize the sizable market available to them in the PC space. Steam, in particular, has seen quite an influx of Japanese games over the last year or so.

Granted, there's still a long way to go, but at least it's a start.

2) Tendency to release stuff first and patch it later even though the game is riddled with bugs.

It really is aggravating to see developers abuse auto-updating systems by releasing games in extremely buggy states, promising to "patch it later". Even worse is that this sort of practice is starting to make its way to consoles too.

Of all the things consoles have tried copying from PC, this is one they really should have avoided.

3) Loads of tiny content packages which add up to a substantial amount of money spent.

Nickel-and-diming users with DLC is a universal issue, at this point. Which is quite unfortunate, seeing as DLC isn't an inherently bad notion.

Sadder still is that we're starting to see the worst aspects of free-to-play games making their way onto consoles as well.

4) Lack of story-driven co-op. I can literally think of only a single title, which is Hunted.

There are some, but I completely agree. There really aren't enough single-machine co-op games on PC. Certainly not enough contemporary titles, anyway.

Here's hoping Valve's big push for the living room brings some incentive for devs to start bringing more 'couch co-op' games to PC.

 

[wings012]

The only time I bemoaned gaming on a PC is the lack of console exclusives. Which is hardly the fault of the PC to begin with. Controls are fixed by getting a controller and crappily mapped PC controllers is the fault of the devs, not the platform.

Not when half the reason you don't game on consoles anyway is due to disliking controllers. Every PC game should have (A) fully remappable keybinds, and (B) good mouse and keyboard support.

And it's still a case by case thing that's the fault of the dev rather than an inherent fault of the platform itself.

 

[Creator002]

2. The fact I need to upgrade every 2-5 years in order to stay at "top range" performance..

5. Most games play better with a controller anyway (especially 3rd person games).

2. Why do you need to be at top range performance? It's not like your performance will actively degrade, your games will still play exactly as well as they would have before.

5. Then use a controller.

I don't need to be at the highest tier of performance, but I do like it when my games run on the highest graphics without any frame dropping. I'm doing fine right now, with most games running on at least medium at full resolution. I am going to have to upgrade before long, or I'll be running on low or having to drop my resolution down which isn't preferable. In short, I want my games to play well and be pretty.

Use a controller? I do.
I didn't mention it in my original post, but I own an Xbox One and on pretty much every game except FPSs and RTSs, I use the controller. I didn't mean that as a personal complaint, just a general disadvantage to PC gaming.

 

[Vigormortis]

I don't need to be at the highest tier of performance, but I do like it when my games run on the highest graphics without any frame dropping. I'm doing fine right now, with most games running on at least medium at full resolution. I am going to have to upgrade before long, or I'll be running on low or having to drop my resolution down which isn't preferable. In short, I want my games to play well and be pretty.

But that still isn't a drawback to PC gaming. That you can upgrade to take advantage of the newest engine tech is an advantage.

You say you like to play the newest games at the highest settings. That's fine, but bare in mind that those same games are running on your console at (quite often) the lowest settings the engine can output. In fact, when your efforts to hit a stable 60+ fps forces you to lower a game's graphical settings to, say, medium, quite often your console will be running that same game on low settings to achieve similar or even lower frame-rates.

It's always fascinated me that the ability to upgrade has been skewed as a disadvantage of PC gaming. It's a hell of a spin.

Use a controller? I do.
I didn't mention it in my original post, but I own an Xbox One and on pretty much every game except FPSs and RTSs, I use the controller. I didn't mean that as a personal complaint, just a general disadvantage to PC gaming.

How is that a disadvantage of PC gaming, though? You can use virtually any control input method you want on a PC - from a keyboard and mouse to a trackball, from a flight stick to a steering wheel, from a touch screen to a controller. The same can't be said of consoles.

I'm confused...

 

[Creator002]

The two points you had issue with, I think I used the word "disadvantage" as "con" rather than what it actually means. That's totally on me. I'll explain my thought process anyway, but you can jump to the end of the post to see the shortened version:

I don't need to be at the highest tier of performance, but I do like it when my games run on the highest graphics without any frame dropping. I'm doing fine right now, with most games running on at least medium at full resolution. I am going to have to upgrade before long, or I'll be running on low or having to drop my resolution down which isn't preferable. In short, I want my games to play well and be pretty.

But that still isn't a drawback to PC gaming. That you can upgrade to take advantage of the newest engine tech is an advantage.

You say you like to play the newest games at the highest settings. That's fine, but bare in mind that those same games are running on your console at (quite often) the lowest settings the engine can output. In fact, when your efforts to hit a stable 60+ fps forces you to lower a game's graphical settings to, say, medium, quite often your console will be running that same game on low settings to achieve similar or even lower frame-rates.

It's always fascinated me that the ability to upgrade has been skewed as a disadvantage of PC gaming. It's a hell of a spin.

It's a disadvantage financially, considering a console can last 6+ years. A top range graphics card can cost upwards of $1200 (AUD - My current one[footnote]AMD Radeon HD 6950[/footnote] was >$500 four years ago) and a fair number of people have two cards in the same system. For someone unemployed with more important financial responsibilities, it can be a drain. Even without said responsibilities, I can't justify getting myself, for example, one SLI Titan, let alone two. Obviously, I'd get a card that performs the highest for today (costing no more than my last card), not the future.
However, I didn't know that consoles ran games on low settings compared to PC (framerates I knew, with the whole 30FPS vs. 60FPS we had a bit back). I must admit, Battlefield 4 on PC on low settings doesn't look much different from ultra, except for texture quality (which isn't something you'd notice often in a fast-paced game that Battlefield can be) and shadow sharpness (more blocky shadows on lower quality, again, rarely noticeable).
Game play-wise, yes. It's an advantage to upgrade your system to have good graphics. Financially, it isn't exactly a disadvantage (since it's optional), but rather a point against going for PCs as a primary gaming platform. Especially if your a graphics whore, like I tend to be.[footnote]Almost a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation if you don't have the finances. Upgrade for good graphics and a steady framerate for years to come, you'll be worse off financially. Don't upgrade, games may not be as steady on high settings, games don't look as good on low settings, but you've got money.[/footnote]

Use a controller? I do.
I didn't mention it in my original post, but I own an Xbox One and on pretty much every game except FPSs and RTSs, I use the controller. I didn't mean that as a personal complaint, just a general disadvantage to PC gaming.

How is that a disadvantage of PC gaming, though? You can use virtually any control input method you want on a PC - from a keyboard and mouse to a trackball, from a flight stick to a steering wheel, from a touch screen to a controller. The same can't be said of consoles.

I'm confused...

Sorry. I can see why you're confused. What I meant was, it's a redundant point to those who prefer K+M inputs to controllers, since, IMO, most things run better with a controller. Again, this was more a pro/con point rather than a disadvantage.

EDIT - Actually, if you read my original point with the understanding of what I meant, you can actually see that that's what I was going for.

5. Most games play better with a controller anyway (especially 3rd person games).

The word "anyway" in there, if you go by what I intended, implies that, control-wise, PCs have no advantage over consoles (in my opinion, considering some people might like using another method for most games, like I do with FPSs and RTSs). However, I do realise that a non-advantage isn't the same as a disadvantage.

SHORTENED VERSION: With the first point, I was talking about it being a financial disadvantage, having to buy the parts, instead of how the consequences of upgrading impact PC gaming, which is what I think you were saying.
With the second point, I meant that having most games run better on controllers makes the point of keyboard and mouse setups moot. Again, that doesn't impact PC gaming, but rather attacks the argument of "mouse and keyboard is better than controller." Obviously, having the choice of control (as you said, flight stick, K+M, controller, etc.) is better than "controller/motion controls only."
Basically, it seems as if I had a different meaning of disadvantage in my head than you did. Mine was incorrect in relevance to the topic, maybe all together.

 

[JohnZ117]

I don't really play multi-player, and definitely not on pc, so I didn't really think of this until...many of you, whether you know it or not, have been dancing around one big plus in consoles' list, they're more fair. Play your favorite against anyone on a PS 4 and, barring internet connection and skill, it's pretty much guaranteed that you're on an equal level. On the pc, if you're a regular Joe or Joanne, up against someone with more buying power than God, they're going to have a significant advantage on the battlefield.

 

[the_dramatica]

-what sucks
microsoft installing spyware backwards onto older systems

oh wait that's on every console

uhh, games don't have their graphics downgraded to run on dirt cheap gpus so you need to pay more for a gaming pc.

 

[Worgen]

I always assumed this "PC Master Race" shit was meant to be a joke.

It was a joke originally. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/22-The-Witcher

People just seem to either ignore that, or are ignorant of it and use the term unironically, to much pain and disappointment.

Do people use it unironically? I can't actually remember a single instance when I've seen someone use it straight faced. Then again I don't go to reddit.

 

[Vigormortis]

It's a disadvantage financially, considering a console can last 6+ years. A top range graphics card can cost upwards of $1200 (AUD - My current one (AMD Radeon HD 6950) was >$500 four years ago) and a fair number of people have two cards in the same system.

This assumes quite a lot, though.

First, that the console will last that length of time while the PC hardware will not. Second, that someone has to buy the very latest, top-of-the-line card to run current gen games at the highest settings. Third, that those GPUs will cost over a grand each. And fourth, that they'll need multiple GPUs to attain their goal.

This precludes a lot of circumstances that could play into the costs.

For someone unemployed with more important financial responsibilities, it can be a drain. Even without said responsibilities, I can't justify getting myself, for example, one SLI Titan, let alone two. Obviously, I'd get a card that performs the highest for today (costing no more than my last card), not the future.

But again, you don't have to get the latest cards to run most cross-platform games at higher settings. I'm currently using an HD R9 290 in this rig (granted, I'm running two of them, but I got a really good deal and I wanted to future-proof). That particular card goes for roughly $250, and I can attest to it being able to handle pretty much any game I throw at it on the highest settings.

However, I didn't know that consoles ran games on low settings compared to PC (framerates I knew, with the whole 30FPS vs. 60FPS we had a bit back).

Oh yes, this is often the case. Many will claim that consoles always have a unified hardware architecture, making them easier to optimize for. While this is usually true, it doesn't allow devs to work miracles. They can't overcome the hardware limitations, no matter how hard they try. So, in the end, many games that utilize cutting-edge engines (see: CryEngine3, Unreal4, Frostbite 3, etc) have no choice but to limit the capabilities of the engine to allow the game to run stably and smoothly. This includes lowering texture resolutions, shadow details, shader effects, particle effects, draw distances, model details, frame rate caps, etc.

In fact, they often have to take it a few steps further to achieve that goal. Sometimes you'll see a dev claim they have the game running at 60fps at 1080p. But, what you'll actually find is, the game runs at a maximum of 60fps (usually stabilized at 30) and the resolution is upscaled to 1080p instead of being true 1080.

Game play-wise, yes. It's an advantage to upgrade your system to have good graphics.

You might find this surprising, but that isn't always true. Quite often you'll find that pro-level players purposefully turn down the graphical settings on their games when they plan to compete. Allowing their system to run the game as quickly and as smoothly as it can is often better than having it run 'beautifully'.

Todays modern hardware can easily handle games like Quake 3, for example, but tourney players will still run the game at minimum settings, just to guarantee optimum performance.

Generally speaking, save for a few occasions, having better graphical fidelity isn't advantageous to gameplay.

Financially, it isn't exactly a disadvantage (since it's optional), but rather a point against going for PCs as a primary gaming platform. Especially if your a graphics whore, like I tend to be. Almost a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation if you don't have the finances. Upgrade for good graphics and a steady framerate for years to come, you'll be worse off financially. Don't upgrade, games may not be as steady on high settings, games don't look as good on low settings, but you've got money.

Yes, you may have to run a few games at lower settings, but more often than not those games will look just as good (or, at times, better) than their console counterpart.

This is only ever not true in occasions of really poorly done ports, wherein even top-of-the-line hardware will struggle to run the game stably. *cough* Arkham Knight *cough*

Sorry. I can see why you're confused. What I meant was, it's a redundant point to those who prefer K+M inputs to controllers, since, IMO, most things run better with a controller. Again, this was more a pro/con point rather than a disadvantage.

EDIT - Actually, if you read my original point with the understanding of what I meant, you can actually see that that's what I was going for.

5. Most games play better with a controller anyway (especially 3rd person games).

The word "anyway" in there, if you go by what I intended, implies that, control-wise, PCs have no advantage over consoles (in my opinion, considering some people might like using another method for most games, like I do with FPSs and RTSs). However, I do realise that a non-advantage isn't the same as a disadvantage.

I actually understood your stance, insofar as preferring a controller for certain games. And, to be fair, I completely understand preferring a controller for certain genres. I can't say I share your opinion on 3rd person games (I still prefer my K&M) but when I sit down to play Broforce or Castle Crashers with someone, you can bet I'll have a controller in hand.

I was just saying that PCs do have an advantage over consoles in terms of choice of input method. Regardless of which method is "default" for a given system, the system that offers more input options is the more advantageous one.

but rather attacks the argument of "mouse and keyboard is better than controller."

There's a debate to be had on that point, but that's an entirely different discussion for a different day.

And really, when all's said and done, it's all moot. Whichever platform is 'superior' to the others is irrelevant to which one any given player prefers. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is able to derive some enjoyment from their system of choice, that's all that matters to me.

Play on.

 

[Vigormortis]

Do people use it unironically? I can't actually remember a single instance when I've seen someone use it straight faced. Then again I don't go to reddit.

The only, and I do mean only, times I've ever seen it truly used unironically is when console gamers use it as a slight against PC gamers. Out of the vast number of PC gamers I know personally, and of those I've seen write or publish works, I've yet to see one use the term as some unironic badge of honor. At worst, it's a form of self-deprecation.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

There's a bunch of things I could say why PCs are better. For example, not only can I play on them, but I can also work on them. Use them for coding and generally staying in touch with people, which keyboards are much better for than controllers when you're typing.

But in reality, there is only one word that matters.

Mods

I had to buy Oblivion twice, because the 360 version didn't have mods.
Since then, I don't buy both consoles and PC, but exclusively PC.

The only exception to this rule are Nintendo handhelds that let me play Pokemon.