Creator002 said:
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.
