PC Games Will Outsell Consoles by 2014

[Mr. Omega]

I see two paragraphs of the news actual report, and 4 paragraphs of gushing over how amazing PC Gaming is and how it's sooooo much better than console gaming.

OT: Well that's all well and good. Here's me not giving a damn. Now when they make an actually decent, cheap and accessable gaming laptop, then I'll interested in PC Gaming.

Is $400 cheap enuff for you?

It's pricey, but I could do a lot worse.

Pricey?!

You must be mad.

It's pricey when I have a limited income and have other things to worry about.

 

[LordZ]

Thing is, I need the laptop for uses other than gaming. The gaming aspect is SECONDARY. I've had a console for a while, I use it with my TV, and it's used purely for entertainment purposes. I need to do WORK on my computer, and my situation makes it a lot more convenient for me to have a computer that I can move around. Being able to play TF2 on it is a nice BONUS.

Furthermore, I never said PC would lose, I said I wasn't interested.

I'd get a netbook for work and a desktop for gaming. Actually, that's what I've already done. My netbook was $250 and does all the work stuff I could need and has a rather awesome battery life. My desktop (core components were in the <=$500 range but I built it years ago; prices are even better now) handles all the gaming needs I could ever have. I even have another PC hooked up to our 65" HDTV but I like to do other things while I game and find myself at my desk most of the time. I'm a bit near sighted and reading text on my 65" isn't quite as easy sitting back in a recliner. I could put on my glasses but it's just more relaxing to game at a desk with my 22" monitor.

For the record, I have several consoles and well over 200 console games at my last count, which was a few years ago. Guess how much time I've spent playing on a console since the most recent generation of consoles came out? I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1% of the time I spend on my PC playing games (not even counting the time I do other stuff with my PC). My consoles have pretty much collected dust the entirety of the past year.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Thing is, I need the laptop for uses other than gaming. The gaming aspect is SECONDARY. I've had a console for a while, I use it with my TV, and it's used purely for entertainment purposes. I need to do WORK on my computer, and my situation makes it a lot more convenient for me to have a computer that I can move around. Being able to play TF2 on it is a nice BONUS.

Furthermore, I never said PC would lose, I said I wasn't interested.

I'd get a netbook for work and a desktop for gaming. Actually, that's what I've already done. My netbook was $250 and does all the work stuff I could need and has a rather awesome battery life. My desktop (core components were in the <=$500 range but I built it years ago; prices are even better now) handles all the gaming needs I could ever have. I even have another PC hooked up to our 65" HDTV but I like to do other things while I game and find myself at my desk most of the time. I'm a bit near sighted and reading text on my 65" isn't quite as easy sitting back in a recliner. I could put on my glasses but it's just more relaxing to game at a desk with my 22" monitor.

My TV is barely any bigger than a monitor. I got the console (the Wii) as a gift back in 06, and the laptop was a gift for going to college, and I got my TV at a sale, and I'm borrowing my brother's PS3. What I'm trying to portray here is that I don't have much money. Plus, why get another PC and a separate machine to do work, when I can do that ON THE SAME MACHINE?

And you know I also don't have much of? Space. I'm in a dorm, with a roommate. Between the cabinets, school supplies, books, clothes, the beds, stuff for eating like microwaves and dishes and such, I barely have enough room for my TV, and need to keep my consoles on the floor. I game from my bed. And what's more, I need to move my stuff every season between terms. Last thing I need is two more bulky machines to move around. (Well, the PS3 is bulky, but the Wii is pretty easy to transport).

Would I LIKE to have your set-up? I'd KILL to have your set-up. But my situation makes getting a desktop unneeded and impractical.

For the record, I have several consoles and well over 200 console games at my last count, which was a few years ago. Guess how much time I've spent playing on a console since the most recent generation of consoles came out? I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1% of the time I spend on my PC playing games (not even counting the time I do other stuff with my PC). My consoles have pretty much collected dust the entirety of the past year.

Well good for you. Now what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Sir Shockwave]

I think the big factor in this isn't the AAA releases like Starcraft II. I think the main reason for these figures are the number of indie groups we've been blessed with making quality games, like Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Anomoly: Warzone Earth and Hard Reset.

This also shows that EA, Activision and whoever else has their target demographics completely wrong.

 

[adamtm]

lol. awesome pic. I think the problem was more with getting his T.V tot he right settings...I dunno. But then Steam raises a new problem. I can't hand cash to steam. I have 0 ways of paying for anything on steam. I know many other people like this. Plus downloading an entire game can take awhile. Where as walking to the store and handing someone money is easier then setting up a paypal and getting the info needed to connect it to my bank or getting a credit card and then connecting it to the account to buy things. Of course I could just walk to best buy to buy games...But that's actually another problem, for me at least, since I can get games at a stores that's a 15min walk away. the closest place to buy PC games is 4 miles. That's just weird location sales on my part though.

You are seriously grasping at straws my friend. With your convenience factors its a wonder you play any games at all.

But wasn't RROD a hardware problem, whereas most PC crashes are due to software and bugs and poorly setup and maintained computers?

So a persistent hardware failure is now "better" than a software failure? Lol.

Perhaps a bit of exaggeration, but I would think mostly on the ball. However...

What do you mean "no future of console gaming"? Sure there is. There's tomorrow, the next two weeks, the next six months and whatever Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft do in the next couple of years. It may not be the same console we're used to seeing, but it won't be a desktop computer or a laptop either, I'm betting.

In the context of my post, the poster i responded to, made the argument that with future consoles RROD won't be a problem, and there is a. no guarantee for that and b. atm there is not "future" of consoles. There is no next next gen hardware. PCs are putting out new hardware all the time, consoles are not. As I said before Wii-U runs 2008 hardware, and isn't even out yet.

Not all consoles use DVDs. PS3, as you well know, uses Blurays that hold far more data than DVDs. Current consoles will continue to use discs, but as we skew more and more towards full digital, storage capacity of discs won't matter. On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised to see games eventually showing up on solid state storage devices with massive amounts of memory. I've got a 500gb drive in my PS3. In a few years they'll be able to cram that memory into something the size of a PSP memory stick.

Console and Mac stability are definitely overrated, but that being said, I've had far, far less problems with a Mac and a PS3 than I ever had with a Windows based PC. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but I've not got any complaints about my PS3 (the Mac yes, but for entirely different, unrelated reasons). I gave up PC gaming years ago, because I found it was becoming impossible for me to play newer games without investing money- money I didn't have at the time. I don't have that issue with my console.

Fallout: New Vegas is the buggiest game I've encountered on my PS3. Almost unplayable at this point. Fallout 3, oddly enough, hardly gave me any problems. Go figure.

I'm not saying you are, but people seem to look down on "convenience" like it's a bad thing. Why is that? What's wrong with making something easy? That's why Macs and iPhones had such a popularity surge. The closed systems of those, and consoles too, make it much easier for more people to just use a device. As neat as it is to know how and why things work and be able to tinker with them to your liking, there's also much to be said for products that just work. Work as advertised, work when you want them to and work throughout the products lifetime. I'm not saying PCs don't, but they do have a reputation for a reason. It's why we have IT departments and computer techs and, yes, Mac stores too. Shit happens and not everyone can or even wants to know how to fix it. Just like cars. How many people know how to fix their own cars? Not most people. They just want a nice, reliable, comfortable car, and that's sort of what a console is. PCs are like racing cars- you need a bit more knowledge, time and money to drive them, but when you get it running right, the Fords and Toyotas just don't compare. But there's nothing wrong with Fords and Toyotas and, in fact, some of them are quite nice, go pretty darn fast and look good too. But nobody is bitching that cars are "convenient". No one cares, because in the end, they mostly work for most people.

Personally, I think both PCs and consoles have their benefits and their downsides and that each person should be free to choose one or the other without someone else calling them an "elitist" or being looked down upon because they don't want a gaming computer.

Like I said many times before, I try to combat a certain marketing-lie perpetuated by console manufacturers. Namely that console-gaming is cooler, sexier and all around better than "PC Gaming". It reminds me of those infuriating "I'm a Mac" commercials.

I'm not exclusively a PC gamer, i own an original Xbox, a PSP, a DS, a GBA Micro, and by proxy over my boyfriend a 360. However i prefer the PC. Not because its more elite, but its more convenient -to me- to play games on my PC. Chatting with friends while playing on a keyboard, higher input precision in FPS, games that require or include socializing just work better with a PC.

In addition I would have a PC even if i didnt play games at all, primarily i use my PC for work and communication, something a console can never provide.
I don't understand the convenience-factor in buying a cheap 300$ laptop, and then buying a 250$ console separately, where adding up the $$$ amounts to a budget that would get them a decent laptop ready for gaming (or a very decent desktop rig).

I think that its a myth that consoles are more convenient.
I built a cheap PC for my boyfriend in December, he massively bought games for 360 before that and we have a large library. But since he has the PC he spent zero dollars on games for 360, instead he bough shit-tons of PC games. But anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, right?

As i said previously in this thread, if Microsoft released an official emulator for 360 on PC, there would be -no- reason to not play games on PC. Its a manufactured dichotomy, manufactured by false advertising and exclusive titles for platforms.

I'm blaming the companies directly for this. They want a console vs PC war, else they won't sell their product.

In the same way Apple needed to separate itself from the "PC" in the early 2000s, it brought them the image of being incredible hipster douchebags. I still hate the pervasive belief that Macs are good for graphics design. As a graphics designer I encounter this in almost every company, spending huge amounts of money on hardware that essentially sucks, some didn't want to employ me as a freelancer because I worked on PC (i can work on Mac i just don't own one) because they thought it would break their workflow (total bullshit, PSDs are PSDs on any fucking platform).

I'm not trying to promote PCs (well in a sense) but counter false marketing and remove dividing lines. The "we are all gamers mkay" response is not helpful, because it makes it ok to take shit from companies that consciously want to split the community for their monetary benefit.
Exposing the bullshit however is.

Exploiting the "us vs them" mentality in brand-loyalty is a VERY powerful tool in marketing perpetuated by console manufacturers.

 

[adamtm]

double post

 

[adamtm]

OT: Well that's all well and good. Here's me not giving a damn. Now when they make an actually decent, cheap and accessable gaming laptop, then I'll interested in PC Gaming.

...I walked past six today at my local computer part shop.

Are you interested yet? Or does your definition of "cheap" mean less than $300?

Ok, does said shop deliver/ship out or something? How about a link for this place? Preferable one that WORKS, unlike the last one I was given. I keep getting these claims of "oooh, well I can find one! I see them all the time!"

And then when I ask "Cool, where can I get one?" or "Care to back that claim up?" they say one of three things:

1: "Oh, google it, you lazy fuckwit!" You made the claim, you back it up.
2: "I made it myself!" Well, so much for the 'accessible' part...
3: "I wouldn't expect a console-tard like you to know where to shop for a good gaming PC. *insert snarky comment on how I should stick to CoD*" Not that common on this site (but still common, don't get me wrong.), but it just goes to them dodging the question.

I've gotten ONE legit response in my entire time questioning PC Gamers about this, and that one time, the link didn't work.

So to put it bluntly:
I'm very skeptical of your statement. Link or I don't believe you. If your answer is going to be one of the three above, don't bother responding.

I'd add to that that you could always buy used or refurbished laptops if you are going this low on money. 300$ for a portable PC is the low-end spectrum.

Though i am confused, 300$ and then you would still have a console right (around 250$) so in total your budget would be bigger (if you are comparing xbox vs PC gaming)? y/n?

I found this http://computers.pricegrabber.com/laptop/CI32310M-MEM4GB-HD500GB/m881674575.html/st=product/sv=title

Will run anything of this gen (maybe except for Witcher 2 on high) it really is a bargain imho for the amount of utility you get out of it.

 

[Mr. Omega]

OT: Well that's all well and good. Here's me not giving a damn. Now when they make an actually decent, cheap and accessable gaming laptop, then I'll interested in PC Gaming.

...I walked past six today at my local computer part shop.

Are you interested yet? Or does your definition of "cheap" mean less than $300?

Ok, does said shop deliver/ship out or something? How about a link for this place? Preferable one that WORKS, unlike the last one I was given. I keep getting these claims of "oooh, well I can find one! I see them all the time!"

And then when I ask "Cool, where can I get one?" or "Care to back that claim up?" they say one of three things:

1: "Oh, google it, you lazy fuckwit!" You made the claim, you back it up.
2: "I made it myself!" Well, so much for the 'accessible' part...
3: "I wouldn't expect a console-tard like you to know where to shop for a good gaming PC. *insert snarky comment on how I should stick to CoD*" Not that common on this site (but still common, don't get me wrong.), but it just goes to them dodging the question.

I've gotten ONE legit response in my entire time questioning PC Gamers about this, and that one time, the link didn't work.

So to put it bluntly:
I'm very skeptical of your statement. Link or I don't believe you. If your answer is going to be one of the three above, don't bother responding.

I'd add to that that you could always buy used or refurbished laptops if you are going this low on money. 300$ for a portable PC is the low-end spectrum.

Though i am confused, 300$ and then you would still have a console right (around 250$) so in total your budget would be bigger (if you are comparing xbox vs PC gaming)? y/n?

I found this http://computers.pricegrabber.com/laptop/CI32310M-MEM4GB-HD500GB/m881674575.html/st=product/sv=title

Will run anything of this gen (maybe except for Witcher 2 on high) it really is a bargain imho for the amount of utility you get out of it.

1: Thanks for the suggestion.
2: In response, I'll quote myself.
My TV is barely any bigger than a monitor. I got the console (the Wii) as a gift back in 06, and the laptop was a gift for going to college, and I got my TV at a sale, and I'm borrowing my brother's PS3.
Getting my current set-up was through circumstance more than anything else. That and the Wii was more for the use of the Virtual Console and exclusives.
3: If I may respond to your previous post:

atm there is not "future" of consoles. There is no next next gen hardware. PCs are putting out new hardware all the time, consoles are not. As I said before Wii-U runs 2008 hardware, and isn't even out yet.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Take that laptop you suggested to me above. If everything just keep going forward, pretty soon I"d be unable to play the current games. Constantly making games on the newest, top-of-the-line stuff is just going and causing a thing like Crysis over and over again: sure, it LOOKS pretty and all that fancy stuff, but unless you have the latest desktop and all the prerequisites, are you going to actually be able to PLAY IT? I'm not saying there shouldn't be games that push things forward, but using old hardware is not necessarily damning a machine to low-quality, and it doesn't mean the games are going to be bad, either.

 

[Zom-B]

But wasn't RROD a hardware problem, whereas most PC crashes are due to software and bugs and poorly setup and maintained computers?

So a persistent hardware failure is now "better" than a software failure? Lol.

Oh come on, you're deliberately misunderstanding me. I didn't say that the Xbox hardware failure is "better". I was making a distinction. Xboxes were RRODing because of poor hardware, correct? Most PC crashes are due to software, bugs, viruses and the like, not inherent flaws within the PC build. So comparing shoddy Xbox hardware to PC software bugs is apples and oranges.

Perhaps a bit of exaggeration, but I would think mostly on the ball. However...

What do you mean "no future of console gaming"? Sure there is. There's tomorrow, the next two weeks, the next six months and whatever Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft do in the next couple of years. It may not be the same console we're used to seeing, but it won't be a desktop computer or a laptop either, I'm betting.[/quote]

In the context of my post, the poster i responded to, made the argument that with future consoles RROD won't be a problem, and there is a. no guarantee for that and b. atm there is not "future" of consoles. There is no next next gen hardware. PCs are putting out new hardware all the time, consoles are not. As I said before Wii-U runs 2008 hardware, and isn't even out yet.

Not all consoles use DVDs. PS3, as you well know, uses Blurays that hold far more data than DVDs. Current consoles will continue to use discs, but as we skew more and more towards full digital, storage capacity of discs won't matter. On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised to see games eventually showing up on solid state storage devices with massive amounts of memory. I've got a 500gb drive in my PS3. In a few years they'll be able to cram that memory into something the size of a PSP memory stick.

Console and Mac stability are definitely overrated, but that being said, I've had far, far less problems with a Mac and a PS3 than I ever had with a Windows based PC. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but I've not got any complaints about my PS3 (the Mac yes, but for entirely different, unrelated reasons). I gave up PC gaming years ago, because I found it was becoming impossible for me to play newer games without investing money- money I didn't have at the time. I don't have that issue with my console.

Fallout: New Vegas is the buggiest game I've encountered on my PS3. Almost unplayable at this point. Fallout 3, oddly enough, hardly gave me any problems. Go figure.

I'm not saying you are, but people seem to look down on "convenience" like it's a bad thing. Why is that? What's wrong with making something easy? That's why Macs and iPhones had such a popularity surge. The closed systems of those, and consoles too, make it much easier for more people to just use a device. As neat as it is to know how and why things work and be able to tinker with them to your liking, there's also much to be said for products that just work. Work as advertised, work when you want them to and work throughout the products lifetime. I'm not saying PCs don't, but they do have a reputation for a reason. It's why we have IT departments and computer techs and, yes, Mac stores too. Shit happens and not everyone can or even wants to know how to fix it. Just like cars. How many people know how to fix their own cars? Not most people. They just want a nice, reliable, comfortable car, and that's sort of what a console is. PCs are like racing cars- you need a bit more knowledge, time and money to drive them, but when you get it running right, the Fords and Toyotas just don't compare. But there's nothing wrong with Fords and Toyotas and, in fact, some of them are quite nice, go pretty darn fast and look good too. But nobody is bitching that cars are "convenient". No one cares, because in the end, they mostly work for most people.

Personally, I think both PCs and consoles have their benefits and their downsides and that each person should be free to choose one or the other without someone else calling them an "elitist" or being looked down upon because they don't want a gaming computer.

Like I said many times before, I try to combat a certain marketing-lie perpetuated by console manufacturers. Namely that console-gaming is cooler, sexier and all around better than "PC Gaming". It reminds me of those infuriating "I'm a Mac" commercials.

I'm not exclusively a PC gamer, i own an original Xbox, a PSP, a DS, a GBA Micro, and by proxy over my boyfriend a 360. However i prefer the PC. Not because its more elite, but its more convenient -to me- to play games on my PC. Chatting with friends while playing on a keyboard, higher input precision in FPS, games that require or include socializing just work better with a PC.

In addition I would have a PC even if i didnt play games at all, primarily i use my PC for work and communication, something a console can never provide.
I don't understand the convenience-factor in buying a cheap 300$ laptop, and then buying a 250$ console separately, where adding up the $$$ amounts to a budget that would get them a decent laptop ready for gaming (or a very decent desktop rig).

I think that its a myth that consoles are more convenient.
I built a cheap PC for my boyfriend in December, he massively bought games for 360 before that and we have a large library. But since he has the PC he spent zero dollars on games for 360, instead he bough shit-tons of PC games. But anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, right?

As i said previously in this thread, if Microsoft released an official emulator for 360 on PC, there would be -no- reason to not play games on PC. Its a manufactured dichotomy, manufactured by false advertising and exclusive titles for platforms.

I'm blaming the companies directly for this. They want a console vs PC war, else they won't sell their product.

In the same way Apple needed to separate itself from the "PC" in the early 2000s, it brought them the image of being incredible hipster douchebags. I still hate the pervasive belief that Macs are good for graphics design. As a graphics designer I encounter this in almost every company, spending huge amounts of money on hardware that essentially sucks, some didn't want to employ me as a freelancer because I worked on PC (i can work on Mac i just don't own one) because they thought it would break their workflow (total bullshit, PSDs are PSDs on any fucking platform).

I'm not trying to promote PCs (well in a sense) but counter false marketing and remove dividing lines. The "we are all gamers mkay" response is not helpful, because it makes it ok to take shit from companies that consciously want to split the community for their monetary benefit.
Exposing the bullshit however is.

Exploiting the "us vs them" mentality in brand-loyalty is a VERY powerful tool in marketing perpetuated by console manufacturers.[/quote]

Honestly, I've never felt that consoles ever go for the "cooler, better, sexier" angle. From my point of view, it's more like "awesome, fun, do everything media center!". Consoles compete against each other in marketing. I don't perceive them as even acknowledging PCs in their marketing. It's almost like console manufacturers are relatively unconcerned with PCs and PC gamers.

You say you don't understand the "convenience" factor of having a laptop and a console, yet at the same time, for whatever reason, you purchases yourself an Xbox and you have at least three handhelds. So if it wasn't gaming "convenience" that spurred you to buy those, what was it? By your own words, there's no point in a console if you've got a PC. Unless, of course, you want to do portable gaming, right? Handhelds are pretty darn convenient for that, so I think you entirely understand why someone might choose to have a console over a PC.

It doesn't sound like you're trying to remove dividing lines when you can't even be honest with yourself about why you have purchased in the past a console for gaming and probably still use at least one of your handhelds regularly. Either that, or you're just taking the piss.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

At least i don't need a degree in computer engineering to upgrade my system every year.

Besides they fixed the Red Ring of Death, and my 'box never crapped out once in the four years I've owned it.

Consoles have always been a more economical for me.

And when's the last time you saw a used computer game?

I recently upgraded my graphics card. It was as difficult as taking out the old card and slotting the new one in -- like Lego. I'm studying Arts, by the way.

As for the costs: when you factor in annual Live costs, the generally higher pricing of games and peripherals, the costs tend to balance out. Hell, you can make a substantive argument that PC gaming is cheaper.

A solid gaming computer will not cost all that much to make, maintain and upgrade. Contrary to popular belief, you simply do not need the latest technology every upgrade cycle to get an excellent gaming experience. Leave that to the enthusiasts.

I do not begrudge you for using an Xbox, but you have certain misconceptions about PC gaming.

Misconceptions? I used to be one of you people! All those things I described? All happened to me. My PC needed constant surveillance and trouble shooting. Buying the technology to upgrade the thing required money we just didn't have. All this PC gaming talk is really only referring to dedicated gaming PC's which I didn't have or have ever owned. Hell, my computer choked on Half-Life 1. When it was my only gaming platform, I was severely limited in my selection.

The degree in computer science thing was a joke.

Console games have the advantage of universal system requirements, meaning I don't need to take a list of system requirements to the game store, and impulse buys are less likely to end in tears because my computer isn't a brownout causing beast.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

At least i don't need a degree in computer engineering to upgrade my system every year.

Besides they fixed the Red Ring of Death, and my 'box never crapped out once in the four years I've owned it.

Consoles have always been a more economical for me.

And when's the last time you saw a used computer game?

*three or four years

Also, "Degree in computer engineering"

Step one: Look up parts (two hours)
Step two: Buy parts (~$300, one hour)
Step three: Place parts in computer using a manual (three minutes to half an hour)
Step four: Boot up, install drivers off disks (five to twenty minutes)
Step five (optional): Download the latest drivers off the internet (three to ten minutes)

Hyperbole is not your friend.

Also, I don't see how the presence of used PC games is relevant. I typically only buy games I know I'll like, so I never have to return them. And if I do, it's called "eBay".

Point is they fixed it.

PC's aren't immune to crapping out so don't start acting all holier than thou on me, just because you had the cash necessary to buy the parts and make all the little fiddly bits talk to each other.

 

[LilithSlave]

DFC

Well, as long as any platform has DFC there's nothing to worry about.

Ehem, I doubt that consoles are going anywhere anytime soon. It's true though that consoles are in a slump right now with the Wii coming out in the lead. But I think that this whole thing is a bit overly optimistic for PC gaming and overly pessimistic for console gaming.

 

[adamtm]

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Take that laptop you suggested to me above. If everything just keep going forward, pretty soon I"d be unable to play the current games. Constantly making games on the newest, top-of-the-line stuff is just going and causing a thing like Crysis over and over again: sure, it LOOKS pretty and all that fancy stuff, but unless you have the latest desktop and all the prerequisites, are you going to actually be able to PLAY IT? I'm not saying there shouldn't be games that push things forward, but using old hardware is not necessarily damning a machine to low-quality, and it doesn't mean the games are going to be bad, either.

System requirements have rarely changed in the past years since the nextgen consoles inception.
If you look at some games released back then, like lets say Oblivion and compare the system requirements against something released recently, like lets say Borderlands. They are exactly the same.

The only difference is the graphics card, a 6800 series for Oblivion and a 8600 series for Borderlands. The 8xxx series was released in 2006, the Xbox360 in 2005, Borderlands was released 2009, i.e. 3 years after the 8xxx series was "top of the line", meaning i could get one for 50$ in 2009. In fact i had one in my 2007 laptop.

I never claimed that games that run on old hardware are bad.
I just see how PCs have so spectacularly overtaken consoles at the moment, that -any- PC that is not a laptop you are going to buy at Walmart will be able to run the games you want, no hassle.

Is this a bad thing for you as the consumer in the short term? Hell no, means you can play all those games after all.

HOWEVER, lets take the example of Borderlands and Oblivion. Borderlands is heavily instanced, every 10 meters there is a loading-screen, this is done because the current gen consoles couldn't handle the technical aspect of the game if it was open world like Oblivion.
Don't get me wrong, Borderlands is a phenomenally fun game to play, however there is this really hard nagging voice at the back of my head telling me:

"Dude, if they only made this on PC, imagine the world and freedom you could have had!"

This is a reduction in quality, for me. And all recent games go a similar route. Deus Ex Human Revolution while already impressively immersive could have been better if developed for PC. Same with Dragon Age 2, I popped it in again recently and was reminded how bad this game looks, and plays, with its small confined environments. And the elevators in Mass Effect, oh the horror.

These are all downsides of games being directly developed for consoles that are around 3-4 generations of hardware beyond the curve.

Take this interview here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.314932-Todd-Howard-Tempers-Skyrim-Expectations

Each game represents a quantum leap over its predecessor but Howard, the game director on Skyrim, told PC Gamer he's not sure the new RPG will take as big a step forward as Oblivion did. "Hard to say... I have a hard time looking at it that way," he said. "I think it's close. I don't know that I would say it's as large a leap, just because the technology gap between Morrowind and Oblivion was greater."

It objectively makes my games suck because I -know- they could be so - much - better, if developed for PC.

Oh come on, you're deliberately misunderstanding me. I didn't say that the Xbox hardware failure is "better". I was making a distinction. Xboxes were RRODing because of poor hardware, correct? Most PC crashes are due to software, bugs, viruses and the like, not inherent flaws within the PC build. So comparing shoddy Xbox hardware to PC software bugs is apples and oranges.

Why is comparing shoddy hardware against shoddy software not valid? They both have the same result in the context of the conversation, they impede stability, that was the argument.

You say you don't understand the "convenience" factor of having a laptop and a console, yet at the same time, for whatever reason, you purchases yourself an Xbox and you have at least three handhelds. So if it wasn't gaming "convenience" that spurred you to buy those, what was it? By your own words, there's no point in a console if you've got a PC. Unless, of course, you want to do portable gaming, right? Handhelds are pretty darn convenient for that, so I think you entirely understand why someone might choose to have a console over a PC.

It doesn't sound like you're trying to remove dividing lines when you can't even be honest with yourself about why you have purchased in the past a console for gaming and probably still use at least one of your handhelds regularly. Either that, or you're just taking the piss.

I never purchased a console in my life. The original Xbox I got handed down from a friend, i used it as a DVD player mostly. The small amount of games for it I bought because they are not available on PC (Metal Wolf Chaos, Otogi, Otogi 2, and Buffy) and like I said the 360 in the household isn't mine.

My PSP was a gift from my boyfriend, the only game I bought for it under pressure is Monster Hunter Freedom so he had someone to play it with.
Admittedly though I bought the GBA Micro and the DS, but that was because they were bundled on a garage-sale for 50$ with a bunch of games including Ninja Gaiden (one of my favorites from the past AND INB4 complaints, NO I NEVER OWNED A NES OR SNES EITHER, a friend had it, i played shit on it with him).
Their novelty really wore of fast. I am not going to buy a Vita or 3DS.

PS: Handhelds werent really even in the discussion, its apples to oranges, don't red herring me.

 

[Low Key]

I don't see why PC games shouldn't be more popular. Every time Intel releases a CPU, the integrated graphics get better and better. Pretty soon, you won't even need a high end card to run taxing games at a decent FPS.

I was just doing a budget build for a friend which could handle something like TF2 on medium fairly easily. All the parts cost about $700, which is about how much it cost for my GPU alone. He won't be able to run Battlefield 3 maxed out like I will, but his build will do better than most for the kinds of games he wants to play.

 

[Zom-B]

Oh come on, you're deliberately misunderstanding me. I didn't say that the Xbox hardware failure is "better". I was making a distinction. Xboxes were RRODing because of poor hardware, correct? Most PC crashes are due to software, bugs, viruses and the like, not inherent flaws within the PC build. So comparing shoddy Xbox hardware to PC software bugs is apples and oranges.

Why is comparing shoddy hardware against shoddy software not valid? They both have the same result in the context of the conversation, they impede stability, that was the argument.

Ok yes, comparing software/hardware is totally valid on some levels, but not for the point I was making. Those RRODing Xboxes came like that from the manufacturer, so nothing that the consumer was doing to it (other than perhaps playing too long) was really contributing to the RRODs, whereas a PC may be tip top, running fine but when you put your copy of... whatever, Witcher 2, in, you may have a problem. Maybe your specs are too low. Maybe you've got a bug, it doesn't matter. What matters is as the PC owner you can trouble shoot until you get that game running and that's fine. As a console owner, people practically don't have to deal with that sort of scenario at all. At most, you have to perform a system update, install to the HD or maybe even download a patch via Xbox Live or PSN, right? And even then, those are massively simple actions. Your PC fix for Witcher 2 might also be massively simple, but it also might not. The point is, sometimes PCs just give you a problem and there are simply more problems that can crop up on PCs. I realize that consoles have their issues as well, but mostly, usually, you get a game, pop it in and play. And that's what every Dick and Jane out there wants: They want to put the game in and play.

You say you don't understand the "convenience" factor of having a laptop and a console, yet at the same time, for whatever reason, you purchases yourself an Xbox and you have at least three handhelds. So if it wasn't gaming "convenience" that spurred you to buy those, what was it? By your own words, there's no point in a console if you've got a PC. Unless, of course, you want to do portable gaming, right? Handhelds are pretty darn convenient for that, so I think you entirely understand why someone might choose to have a console over a PC.

It doesn't sound like you're trying to remove dividing lines when you can't even be honest with yourself about why you have purchased in the past a console for gaming and probably still use at least one of your handhelds regularly. Either that, or you're just taking the piss.

I never purchased a console in my life. The original Xbox I got handed down from a friend, i used it as a DVD player mostly. The small amount of games for it I bought because they are not available on PC (Metal Wolf Chaos, Otogi, Otogi 2, and Buffy) and like I said the 360 in the household isn't mine.

My PSP was a gift from my boyfriend, the only game I bought for it under pressure is Monster Hunter Freedom so he had someone to play it with.
Admittedly though I bought the GBA Micro and the DS, but that was because they were bundled on a garage-sale for 50$ with a bunch of games including Ninja Gaiden (one of my favorites from the past AND INB4 complaints, NO I NEVER OWNED A NES OR SNES EITHER, a friend had it, i played shit on it with him).
Their novelty really wore of fast. I am not going to buy a Vita or 3DS.

PS: Handhelds werent really even in the discussion, its apples to oranges, don't red herring me.

To be fair, in trying to demonstrate how inclusive you are, you initially brought your three handhelds into the discussion.

Anyway, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, but it always feels like, in these discussions, that PC gamers really try to illustrate how good PCs are by pointing out how bad consoles are. We all know that PCs provide better graphics and other performance based advantages over consoles. Consoles provide a consistent platform with fairly trouble free gaming. Yes, I realize that PCs aren't some delicate ecosystem thrown out of whack every time you put a new game in, but for every person you present that says "I have no problem running any game on my 2 year old PC" I bet you I can find one that says "My PC/game crashes all the time" or "I can't run that new game until I upgrade X component".

It's like PC gamers refuse to see things from the other side or can't admit that, despite it's downsides, console gaming is not only perfectly fine, but it's also fun and there's really nothing inherently wrong with it. Not to overuse the car analogy, but it's like the difference between driving a luxury two seater sports car and a minivan or SUV. Sure, that sports car goes like stink, looks great and is really comfortable, but you can't haul a load of furniture or a family in it. That doesn't make one inherently better than the other, but they definitely have different demographics in mind.

Same with gaming, imo. Listen, I like PC games too. I'm thinking about getting a laptop just for gaming (I don't need one, but it would be a luxury purpose), but I don't have the money for even a cheap one right now. Nor do I have the space for a desktop PC (which is why I would choose a laptop). But I have a PS3 and I get tons of enjoyment out of it, even if the graphics don't measure up. That doesn't bother me. I play for fun, not for graphics. And anyway, the whole "PCs have better graphics/performance" byline kind of loses steam when you look at how popular a very graphically simplistic game like Minecraft has become. The graphics don't matter in that came because it is fun and that's why people play it, not because it's some sort of benchmark game like Crysis.

You and everyone else can have their preferences, but it's just silly to say that someone else's choice is wrong because it doesn't line up with yours. PCs and consoles are both awesome for gaming, they just appeal to different people.