PC Gaming is Cool And All... But...

[Treblaine]

You mean you never need to write a formal letter? You NEED that if you don't want to end up on the economic trash heap. Or do you actually "need" computers.

I already have a well paying job that I am perfectly comfortable to stay in for now. If I need to write up a formal letter or resume I can simply go to the library and use the computer there.

I made several VERY GOOD points that you just ignored.

I didnt ignore any good points.

Also don't act like graphics are irrelevant or else the 360 and PS3 wouldn't exist. It would all just be PS2 and Wii.

I for one would be fine with ps2 era graphics. The reason we have the 360 and ps3 is because the ps2 and xbox were not powerful enough to create the kind of games developers wanted to make. Not everybody cares about graphics, a point that has been proven again and again.

Ah so you DO need a computer, you just have to go begging to the state when you actually need one. Say, are you replying to this thread on you blackberry, why would you put yourself through that? Are you some sort of masochist? Or has signing up to a long and expensive contract prejudiced you so much that ou cannot think against your ideals that it is "worth the money".

Wait, you have BOTH a PS3 and a 360?!?!

You bought two HD consoles and skipped the wii and claim you don't care about graphics. Bull.

 

[Treblaine]

Maybe: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/27/eas-non-gaap-figures-pc-beating-consoles/

But if I am reading that right, it is:

Xbox360: $152m
PS3: $111m
PC: $154m

So it's not PC beating consoles, it's only beating one console platform seen in isolation. And of course that seems to be projected numbers or something and the other set looks even worse:

PC: $205m
Xbox360: $345m
PS3: $308m

So doesn't look like a win for the glorious PC master race.

Riiiiight.

So because one platform (for one company) isn't as lucrative than THE OTHER TWO COMBINED then it is a complete fail. A company like EA with such a focus on consoles.

PS3 isn't making as much money as 360, does that make it a failure?

PS3 and 360 may be united by a common design and business ethos (both games consoles) but they are still distinct platforms.

I remind you, just one Company is making $205 million off PC and there isn't a press conference for PC at E3, there isn't even a booth, hell there is NO agency championing PC gaming. No advertising, no marketing. It gets where it is purely on its earned reputation.

 

[grumbel]

They specifically don't allow modding BECAUSE ACTIVISION ARE MONEY GRUBBING CON ARTISTS! Modding IS still supported, only the most bitter resistance of the most indifferent publsihers do it.

So are plenty other, see Diablo3. Or John Carmack talk about Rage. The big days of modding seem over.

quote]It just can't max out every-single-game to the very highest level, still better than console.[/quote]
Yeah, and in two or three years you have to buy a new one. $500 PC's are not the thing that will be much good for gaming five years down the road, especially when the new console generation raises the bar and the "cheap console ports" no longer look so cheap.

The only reason why the $500 is viable in the first place is because you get ports of five year old console hardware.

You know about all the extra costs of XBL Gold membership, expensive proprietary hard drives, etc.

Nobody is forcing you to buy XBL Gold and all games are guaranteed to be playable with the lowest end Xbox360.

You are moving the goal post too,

I am not moving it, I don't have any to begin with. As I am not taking part in the stupid "console is superior to PC or the other way around" argument. I have both and I play with whatever seems to be the better fit for the game at hand. Consoles win certain aspects, such as in the ease of use by a mile and PCs do in others such as the customizability/open-platform thing. Both of course also have plenty of issues.

You think simple logic will save this for you? You could as easily argue Wii versions of games are "pretty much" the same as 360/PS3 versions. Why bother with 360? Just release Halo 3 on Original Xbox, it's pretty much the same.

You are missing the point. The point here is that PC ports of console games are exactly identical to their console games in terms of level layout and gameplay. The same is not true for the Wii, Wii games are most of the times completly different games from their Xbox360/PS3/PC counterparts, developed by different teams, featuring different level layouts, different art styles and so on.

You couldn't just port a Xbox360/PS3/PC game over to a Xbox1 or Wii as limits in RAM and CPU power would make it impossible to run them. The same jump hasn't yet happened with PC vs console, games can still reasonably easily swap from one platform to the other.

Of course one can argue that in theory one could build a PC game so awesome that it couldn't be ported to consoles, but that would be pretty much a theoretical argument, as the native hardcore PC game has kind of died with Crysis1. Everybody is now going multiplatform and no longer targeting the high end PC hardware. Thus a high end PC brings you little more then higher resolution and a bit of filtering and a lot of people just don't care about that.

 

[grumbel]

So because one platform (for one company) isn't as lucrative than THE OTHER TWO COMBINED then it is a complete fail. A company like EA with such a focus on consoles.

Who said anything of failure? The point here isn't that the PC is a failure, but simply that it isn't the main focus of most companies. It's a platform games get ported to, not the main target platform. The consolified user interfaces interfaces in PC games are ample proof of that.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

PCs really are just the objectively superior platform. Nothing is wrong with likely consoles (I have a PS3 for console exclusives), but its incorrect to say that they are equal, as a PC can do everything a console can do (and do it better as well) as well as having literally thousands, if not millions, of other fuctions.

I would counter that with just one thing - the ease of use with a console.

On PC there are more potential problems you can run into with compatibility, operating systems, requirements etc... with a console 99% of the time you just pop the disc in and play.

I am saving up for a gaming PC at the moment (as I want to play Skyrim at its best) and my head is spinning from all the numbers and jargon- it's confusing to me. I miss just being able to go 'this works with that, yay!'.

 

[Treblaine]

Shame about modding for a lot of games, but ID software have without fail released the source code for every game engine they use (Doom 3 engine just recently). Rage will get the same soon enough.

The thing is you can't do any modding at all on consoles, the games are utterly static.

It just can't max out every-single-game to the very highest level, still better than console.

Yeah, and in two or three years you have to buy a new one. $500 PC's are not the thing that will be much good for gaming five years down the road, especially when the new console generation raises the bar and the "cheap console ports" no longer look so cheap.

So let me get this straight, in two or three years time I will need a WHOLE new PC because there will supposedly be a next generation of consoles. Nope. I will need to merely upgrade such a PC (with and extra video card in SLI configuration) while console-loyalists would have to fork out likely close to $600 for a new platform with very few games.

In fact the upgrade would probably cost less than 3 years of XBL Gold Membership, 3x $60 = $180

The only reason why the $500 is viable in the first place is because you get ports of five year old console hardware.

Except for how PC kept pace even at the beginning of this generation when it was 1-year console hardware. And all the generations before this too.

PC plays those ports 2-3x better than console, don't kid yourself that console is somehow besting PC because of it's artificially low standard.

Nobody is forcing you to buy XBL Gold and all games are guaranteed to be playable with the lowest end Xbox360.

Yes they are. If I want something as reasonable as to play online multiplayer I have to pay up. You want to have you cake and eat it. You want to claim that 360 can do everything PC can do (including online) for far less money but when it is pointed out how much it costs to do all those things you then move the goalposts "OK, online isn't important".

Online multiplayer is a VERY BASIC THING! It's not like kinect or an extra-gamepad, it is an essential element that hugely inflates the costs. THAT is moving the goal posts.

You are missing the point. The point here is that PC ports of console games are exactly identical to their console games in terms of level layout and gameplay. The same is not true for the Wii, Wii games are most of the times completly different games from their Xbox360/PS3/PC counterparts, developed by different teams, featuring different level layouts, different art styles and so on.

Hmm, Black Ops and COD4 reflex had identical layout on Wii. That is perfect example of how you can just dial everything down SUPER LOW and still fit all the "stuff" in the game.

You couldn't just port a Xbox360/PS3/PC game over to a Xbox1 or Wii as limits in RAM and CPU power would make it impossible to run them. The same jump hasn't yet happened with PC vs console, games can still reasonably easily swap from one platform to the other.

Of course one can argue that in theory one could build a PC game so awesome that it couldn't be ported to consoles, but that would be pretty much a theoretical argument, as the native hardcore PC game has kind of died with Crysis1. Everybody is now going multiplatform and no longer targeting the high end PC hardware. Thus a high end PC brings you little more then higher resolution and a bit of filtering and a lot of people just don't care about that.

No need for theory, there are already games that are impossible to port to consoles without any practicality of porting to consoles without it ending up like the equivalent of Black-ops-wii:

-Crysis
-Total War series
-Dawn of War II Saga
-Red Orchestra 2
-ARMA 2 (the sheer scale and complexity)
-Hard Reset
-Shattered Horizon
-Witcher 2
-STALKER games (again, too big and complex for measly 250MB RAM consoles)

 

[GeorgW]

I have all consoles, I have a PC, I game on all of them for a variety of reasons and with a variety of games. Why is consoles vs PC even an issue?

 

[Treblaine]

I have all consoles, I have a PC, I game on all of them for a variety of reasons and with a variety of games. Why is consoles vs PC even an issue?

Part of it is price, though I think a major element is commitment.

Like paying for XBL Gold Membership, you are paying a large sum of money to play those games online and if you don't use that opportunity then you are squandering your investment.

Then there is the rather self-fulfilling element of friends lists. People who get an Xbox 360 for whatever reason tend to make friends with people who are also on Xbox Live, so when challenged about trying another platfrom they of course say:

"but all my friends are on Xbox Live"

Well of course they are. If you don't have a PS3 you won't have friends on PSN! And vica versa.

Marketing is also hugely important and is hard to overstate. marketing does far more than merley convince people to buy into something, it actually makes them enjoy the thing more! After being saturated with coca-cola advertising a bottle of cola tastes better if you JUST stick a coca-cola label on it.

That's the power of things like the Xbox logo that the Steam logo just cannot do as well, not without spending hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing.

 

[grumbel]

So let me get this straight, in two or three years time I will need a WHOLE new PC because there will supposedly be a next generation of consoles.

Yes, that how it has always worked. A new console generation always means a big jump compared to the last generation and you can bet that this will have a very large impact on how PC gaming will look like.

Nope. I will need to merely upgrade such a PC (with and extra video card in SLI configuration) while console-loyalists would have to fork out likely close to $600 for a new platform with very few games.

When the console costs $600 and is subsidized by the manufacturer, how exactly do you expect a $500 PC, non-subsidized without games specifically optimized for it, to keep up with that?

Except for how PC kept pace even at the beginning of this generation when it was 1-year console hardware. And all the generations before this too.

An expensive gaming PC maybe, not a cheap $500 midrange PC.

Yes they are. If I want something as reasonable as to play online multiplayer I have to pay up. You want to have you cake and eat it. You want to claim that 360 can do everything PC can do (including online) for far less money but when it is pointed out how much it costs to do all those things you then move the goalposts "OK, online isn't important".

Then buy a PS3, PC or pay the Microsoft tax if online is that important. I personally don't care for it, but yeah, Xbox360 online is pretty overpriced, one of the reason why I went with a PS3.

Hmm, Black Ops and COD4 reflex had identical layout on Wii. That is perfect example of how you can just dial everything down SUPER LOW and still fit all the "stuff" in the game.

The only reason why that worked is because that's a primitive corridor shooter, you'd have a much harder time with all the open world games. And anyway, even in the CoD case they had to redo engine, assets and stuff, so it wasn't just a quick and easy port.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I have all consoles, I have a PC, I game on all of them for a variety of reasons and with a variety of games.

Out of curiosity, do you have just the recent ones or, like me, do you collect and save all your previous consoles?

I'm missing some key consoles from Sega(I wish I had a dreamcast), the virtual boy(I only want it to say I have it...) and anything predating nes. I'm also down on handhelds but I do have the great beginnings ones(Original Game Boy and GameGear) mainly for nostalgia value, then again that could apply to most of my systems...

I play both PC and console as well and I agree, there shouldn't be as large a divide in gamers but gamers are people and people love to argue.

 

[scott91575]

I dont care if other people respond but its idiotic to get all pissed off becuase you dont know what people are talking about when you jump into the middle of a discussion. If your going to jump in the middle then the intelligent thing would be to read all the previous posts.

Actually, someone made a point in general that people need PC's. That was the point. You may be the exception, but from your posts it's pretty clear you missed many a point. The vast majority of people use PC's for all those things I mentioned plus more.

Please don't lecture anyone on intelligence. It's pretty clear you have the usefulness and intelligence of a chimp (and that is being generous). You have no clue what a pound is, you think games run on consoles better, and in general you have the attitude of a foul mouthed, idiotic, ignorant teenager.

Next time you have a thought, do the world a favor and let it go. Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth a remove all doubt. Let's just say there is not much doubt about you in this thread.

 

[aprildog18]

OnLive. Use a controller to play games on a PC!

Anyways, I mainly play on PC so now you know which side I'm on.

For FPS, I think it is easier because you can easily to a 180 turn with mouse, bunny hop like a boss (or noob) and go for those precise aiming (which is why BF doesn't have weapon sway on consoles).
There's more buttons on the keyboard than on a controller.
Cross console competition studies show average PC gamers using PC can beat elite console gamers (because of the mouse I believe...faster turning, not because people playing on consoles are dumb).
Save files on PC can easily be backed up on a jump drive or whatever and as OP said, have mods, give myself 500000 of all resources in ME2, and 999999 ammo in Fallout 3

However...PC needs to get upgraded once a while(or it turns into poop)...like once every 4 years but mainly it is the video card that needs upgrading (like $200?) But PC can be used for surfing Internet, listening to music, doing homework (well easier than doing it on a console).

But if you party a lot (play co-op, games like brawl), consoles is the way to go. I don't think it is possible for 4 people to be playing on one PC..

But people already use PC for lots of things (if you are in school) so why not also play games on it instead of buying a console?

BUT FOR SURE, when playing with friends, console wins (unless playing lego games) (but we have starcraft, hsuahsuahsua)

 

[GeorgW]

I have all consoles, I have a PC, I game on all of them for a variety of reasons and with a variety of games. Why is consoles vs PC even an issue?

Part of it is price, though I think a major element is commitment.

Like paying for XBL Gold Membership, you are paying a large sum of money to play those games online and if you don't use that opportunity then you are squandering your investment.

Then there is the rather self-fulfilling element of friends lists. People who get an Xbox 360 for whatever reason tend to make friends with people who are also on Xbox Live, so when challenged about trying another platfrom they of course say:

"but all my friends are on Xbox Live"

Well of course they are. If you don't have a PS3 you won't have friends on PSN! And vica versa.

Marketing is also hugely important and is hard to overstate. marketing does far more than merley convince people to buy into something, it actually makes them enjoy the thing more! After being saturated with coca-cola advertising a bottle of cola tastes better if you JUST stick a coca-cola label on it.

That's the power of things like the Xbox logo that the Steam logo just cannot do as well, not without spending hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing.

All I was saying is that as long as people are enjoying the game, who cares what platform it's on?
Also (I can't believe I'm gonna get into this), the general feel I'm getting is that all the PC gamers feel bullied by the big bad consoles and their marketing; but I much prefer Steam over Xbox live, much like many other; PC gaming is bigger than it's ever been; and a lot of people are taking the market more seriously. Sure there's still bullshit DRM and crappy console ports, but just look at the AAA titles coming out this fall, how many of those have DirectX 11 support or claims that PC is their main platform? Just look around in this thread and see how many PC gamers there are. You've already won and you're still fighting!

As for me, I know PC is superior, but some games I'd rather play on consoles. So much of this argument would disappear if people could just accept that people usually don't think consoles are better, technically, they're just lazy. And given that gaming is entertainment, sometimes I feel I have the right to be lazy and don't have to go searching for hours for a bugfix that only affects my, extremely obscure, graphics card and just instead pop in the disc and go. Hey, funny story, every time I launch Braid it claims it can't run below a 800x600 resolution, even though I have much higher, but it still runs in the background.

I have all consoles, I have a PC, I game on all of them for a variety of reasons and with a variety of games.

Out of curiosity, do you have just the recent ones or, like me, do you collect and save all your previous consoles?

I'm missing some key consoles from Sega(I wish I had a dreamcast), the virtual boy(I only want it to say I have it...) and anything predating nes. I'm also down on handhelds but I do have the great beginnings ones(Original Game Boy and GameGear) mainly for nostalgia value, then again that could apply to most of my systems...

I play both PC and console as well and I agree, there shouldn't be as large a divide in gamers but gamers are people and people love to argue.

I haven't really played long enough to have a collection, unfortunately. I do still have my old consoles, but they only go back to PS1.

 

[Treblaine]

So let me get this straight, in two or three years time I will need a WHOLE new PC because there will supposedly be a next generation of consoles.

Yes, that how it has always worked. A new console generation always means a big jump compared to the last generation and you can bet that this will have a very large impact on how PC gaming will look like.

Nope. I will need to merely upgrade such a PC (with and extra video card in SLI configuration) while console-loyalists would have to fork out likely close to $600 for a new platform with very few games.

When the console costs $600 and is subsidized by the manufacturer, how exactly do you expect a $500 PC, non-subsidized without games specifically optimized for it, to keep up with that?

Except for how PC kept pace even at the beginning of this generation when it was 1-year console hardware. And all the generations before this too.

An expensive gaming PC maybe, not a cheap $500 midrange PC.

Yes they are. If I want something as reasonable as to play online multiplayer I have to pay up. You want to have you cake and eat it. You want to claim that 360 can do everything PC can do (including online) for far less money but when it is pointed out how much it costs to do all those things you then move the goalposts "OK, online isn't important".

Then buy a PS3, PC or pay the Microsoft tax if online is that important. I personally don't care for it, but yeah, Xbox360 online is pretty overpriced, one of the reason why I went with a PS3.

Hmm, Black Ops and COD4 reflex had identical layout on Wii. That is perfect example of how you can just dial everything down SUPER LOW and still fit all the "stuff" in the game.

The only reason why that worked is because that's a primitive corridor shooter, you'd have a much harder time with all the open world games. And anyway, even in the CoD case they had to redo engine, assets and stuff, so it wasn't just a quick and easy port.

How will a $500 PC with $180 upgrade beat a new subsidised console? Same way it did at the beginning of THIS generation. Same as the beginning of the generation before that.

As to corridor shooters, there are PC games too that are just too large, sprawling and detailed to be ported to consoles as I listed in my previous post to you... that you have again ignored.

So now we are talking PS3 rather than Xbox 360.

Well lets take a look at the PS3 now then shall we? Didn't launch in Europe till March 2007 where it cost £425! Have you any idea what kind of PC you could get for £425 back in mid-2007? Back when the pound was so powerful £425 had as much buying power as $850? Sure PS3 had blu-ray, for a revolution in home-media that never materialised as it became all about streaming content and no one really cared about The Matrix in 1080p... it just meant it was easier to see the stunt wires.

I have a lot of respect for Sony for their investment and support of developers to make games like Uncharted, Resistance, Motorstorm, Infamous and Killzone games and many others.

But I don't give a hoot about the hardware, it does nothing special. I'd be just fine if Sony put the same effort with developing these games into PC gaming, a market where these games can reach their full potential.

 

[grumbel]

How will a $500 PC with $180 upgrade beat a new subsidised console? Same way it did at the beginning of THIS generation. Same as the beginning of the generation before that.

If by that you mean, not at all, not even close. Sure I can agree with that. Even a single generation ago you couldn't even get a half descent gaming PC for $500, let alone two generations ago.

 

[Treblaine]

How will a $500 PC with $180 upgrade beat a new subsidised console? Same way it did at the beginning of THIS generation. Same as the beginning of the generation before that.

If by that you mean, not at all, not even close. Sure I can agree with that. Even a single generation ago you couldn't even get a half descent gaming PC for $500, let alone two generations ago.

What the hell are you talking about?

Why have you got this idea that the only capable gaming PC is for way way more than $500 or $680 or something?

Look on the internet, use google, you'll find dozens of examples of builds that costs only $500-600 circa 2007 that beat the 360 soundly. It ain't much to beat, graphics card is equivalent of ATi X1950 XT.

Bioshock is well known for not being super optimised for PC but the game does actually match Xbox 360 performance with an ATi X1950 XT card:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maN0FC5UlE8

The ATI 1000 series from 2005... currently in the 6000 series. Easy to match that performance and certainly manageable to beat it.

 

[grumbel]

Look on the internet, use google, you'll find dozens of examples of builds that costs only $500-600 circa 2007 that beat the 360 soundly.

The Xbox360 was released at the end of 2005 and articles such as this from 2006:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2107/5

Still put the minimum at around $700+ for the bare hardware components, you still need a case, a Windows license, keyboard, mouse, gamepad and other stuff that quickly adds another $200 on top of that. So no, $500 gaming PC that can compete with a $400 Xbox360 didn't exist back then, even less so in 2005. Also note that the GPU in the Xbox360 is still more powerful then what is in that PC (doubly so if you take into account that Xbox360 games are actually optimized for the hardware, unlike PC games).

Also that PC happens to be rather similar to what I run here and I can tell you: Not exactly what the average PC gamer would call a good gaming experience. While it runs some older games perfectly fine (Dead Space), it produces only barely playable frame rates in other games such as Assassins Creed, that is of course only after another $70 spend on a new GPU. The PC is pretty much CPU limited these days and thus not really usable for anything bleeding edge. So time for an upgrade, while the Xbox360 has at least another year or two going for it.

 

[kitolz]

I'm pretty curious about how a new generation of consoles will affect PC gaming. A lot of developers design their games around the tech level of current gen consoles, but PC hardware has been getting cheaper and more powerful.

The minimum gaming rig is the cheapest its ever been, comparatively speaking. Around here, I can assemble an ok gaming rig (tower only, to play F.3.A.R. for example) for around $300. I wonder how a new generation will affect the barrier of entry to PC gaming with regards to pricing.

But I think the biggest limiting factor for PC gaming is the tech savvy required to take full advantage of it. Not everybody wants to deal with it, but I personally find the problem solving aspect of it to be very rewarding. Like a meta-game to play the game (as long as I don't have to deal with it all the goddamn time).

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I think you've missed the point, as an avid PC gamer I must say the cheaper cost of consoles IS the argument.

People are perfectly welcome to buy economy cars, but they probably shouldn't pretend they're having the same driving experience as someone who buys luxury.

That and the ever loved personal preference.

Anyone who "prefers" the economy car to the luxury equivalent is a liar or an idiot.

PCs are more expensive. At this point, that's pretty much their only downside. Of course you do tend to get what you pay for...

 

[Keepeas]

more functional

You were being sarcastic right? PC games require like 5 minutes of checking every time you want to play, you're usually reliant on other companies servers. The downloading, installing, updating always take longer than consoles. Consoles are FAR more functional than pcs.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Let me just give that "quote" some context.

I have both a PC and consoles.

PC, while technologically better and more functional,
is costly compared to a console

Okay...first off, I don't think I've ever had a "5 minutes of checking problem" if you could elaborate on it would help me out.

Second, what does that have to do with the functionality of a PC?
The PC quite literally has MORE FUNCTIONS than a console. You cannot argue that. It's a fact.
You can do more with a computer than you can do with a console.

If you were trying to say that the PC isn't technologically better,
well perhaps what I really meant was "technologically more advanced and upgradeable/adaptable"
(although it could be a pain to develop for all the different types of PC's)