Poll: According to my peers, PC gaming is inferior to consoles.

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

And verily, the poll doth show the superiority complex of PC elitists.

Of course PC elitists will be elitist that is why they are called PC elitists. Do you really have to point out the obvious?

I wonder if you would even bother pointing out the equally big persecution/elitism in console gamers if this thread were reversed because console gamer supremacists are just as bad in this regard.

I have never, in my life, came across someone of intelligence, proclaim with sincerity, that consoles are superior.
Never on this site for damn sure.

Well you obviously don't come to these threads often and no you can't claim at the moment a console is superior as this is not the time for consoles right now, PCs are better. There are times at the start of the console generations where consoles are better but once it gets to mid life they are equal then at the late middle to end PC is better cost wise and technically. That is how it is and always will be.

There is no problem preferring one platform to another and being superior to you or me(aruging that is silly) but in terms of cost and specs that is how the superiority tends to shift.

 

[Draitheryn]

Both sides have valid arguments, both sides have idiots.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

most exclusives for the pc are indie games that are sold through steam.

Actually a lot of PC exclusives are 'middle tier' (bigger than indie but not AAA) titles focused on genres that do not translate well or have just been left by the wayside as far as consoles go - strategy games (both turn-based and real time) and simulations being the biggest ones.

 

[blackdwarf]

most exclusives for the pc are indie games that are sold through steam.

Actually a lot of PC exclusives are 'middle tier' (bigger than indie but not AAA) titles focused on genres that do not translate well or have just been left by the wayside as far as consoles go - strategy games (both turn-based and real time) and simulations being the biggest ones.

yeah, i forgot those. but those are genres that are almost impossible to play on consoles. some of those also work great on the DS.

 

[adamtm]

that is true. but pc is not really that interresting because you can't be sure that every pc onwer has one up tp spec and you also have the problems with piracy. most exclusives for the pc are indie games that are sold through steam.

Unfortunately it's not that simple, it's true that as you said, PCs are everywhere, it's also true that most PCs are far from what you can consider a gaming system or their owners are not interested in using them to play games. Besides not only my examples were far from the best but as long as everybody is more interested in building walled gardens than open systems the amount of PCs present in every household is not very important. Maybe when and if cloud gaming becomes the norm exclusives will become a thing of the past. For now, buy what has the games you want to play.

Chances are that if you have a console (which is a substantial investment in itself) AND a PC (which everyone has anyways because you -need- one in this day and age) you can afford an upgrade to make your PC "up to spec" if you care about gaming.
The specifications for games are now sufficiently low enough in disparity to the released PC hardware, that the majority can run them on a 300$ Wallmart box. Most "gaming PCs" north of 800$ are hopelessly overpowered to run recent games. I own one for the aforementioned sum with a 9800GTX and can run Witcher 2 on Medium just fine (which still looks amazing).

My argument is that the marketing baffles me, obviously the market for PC games is huge because the hardware already exists in most of the households.

Inb4 PC games are buggy. The buggieness in recent games is mostly caused by being console-ports (excluding indie titles like STALKER which get a bigger leeway from me due to low budgets and inexperienced dev-teams).
If you look at the bug track-record of AAA titles like Rage, Skyrim, Fallout, Alpha Protocol, Borderlands, Battlefield 3, they all are console ports that work badly on PC.
Not to say that its the only cause, but a major cause. I am of the firm belief that PC games can be delivered bug-free or mostly bug-free, if effort is put into them like it should with AAA titles.

PS: Piracy is a term bandied around to support any argument. Piracy killed Trine, my cat and peed on the carpet. Except Trine 2 is still being made so it couldn't have been that bad.

Edit:

most exclusives for the pc are indie games that are sold through steam.

Actually a lot of PC exclusives are 'middle tier' (bigger than indie but not AAA) titles focused on genres that do not translate well or have just been left by the wayside as far as consoles go - strategy games (both turn-based and real time) and simulations being the biggest ones.

yeah, i forgot those. but those are genres that are almost impossible to play on consoles. some of those also work great on the DS.

To be fair there are also mid-tier games that are impossible for consoles to handle on the hardware level. STALKER wouldn't be what it is if you needed to instance the hell out of it like Borderlands because it needs around 1 gb ram or more.
The age is showing here.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

most exclusives for the pc are indie games that are sold through steam.

Actually a lot of PC exclusives are 'middle tier' (bigger than indie but not AAA) titles focused on genres that do not translate well or have just been left by the wayside as far as consoles go - strategy games (both turn-based and real time) and simulations being the biggest ones.

yeah, i forgot those. but those are genres that are almost impossible to play on consoles. some of those also work great on the DS.

Actually, most turn based strat games and non-vehicle sims could be moved over to consoles but no one sees it as particularly finacially feasible...

also as the games get more complex they would start to butt up against the severely limited RAM consoles have.

 

[adamtm]

Chances are that if you have a console (which is a substantial investment in itself) AND a PC (which everyone has anyways because you -need- one in this day and age) you can afford an upgrade to make your PC "up to spec" if you care about gaming.
The specifications for games are now sufficiently low enough in disparity to the released PC hardware, that the majority can run them on a 300$ Wallmart box. Most "gaming PCs" north of 800$ are hopelessly overpowered to run recent games. I own one for the aforementioned sum with a 9800GTX and can run Witcher 2 on Medium just fine (which still looks amazing).

My argument is that the marketing baffles me, obviously the market for PC games is huge because the hardware already exists in most of the households.

Well, yes. The logical choice would be to think that since most PCs are more powerful that current consoles (or they require an upgrade that anyone can do) and more numerous, they have to be the most popular platform, but, most people don't use their PCs to play video games. It comes to how the majority chooses to play rather than the potential that computers have to run them.

The majority plays Farmville on Facebook, on their PC.

EDIT to expand my answer: I see the future market requiring no particular hardware, with the rise of WebGL or UNITY that can run in a browser with a plugin. These engines already deliver some very impressive graphics for browser games and can be played full-screen (Drakensang Online: http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/4445736/img/ttt/gggr.jpg )
This seems like the logical step forward for AAA. Its always-on DRM because you need a connection, the dev has constant control over the content and patching, the user can play with plug and play from any device capable of handling the game, there is no distribution, no licensing fees for the platform, no boxes to be shipped, no hardware-platform to be taken into account or ported.

 

[adamtm]

Chances are that if you have a console (which is a substantial investment in itself) AND a PC (which everyone has anyways because you -need- one in this day and age) you can afford an upgrade to make your PC "up to spec" if you care about gaming.
The specifications for games are now sufficiently low enough in disparity to the released PC hardware, that the majority can run them on a 300$ Wallmart box. Most "gaming PCs" north of 800$ are hopelessly overpowered to run recent games. I own one for the aforementioned sum with a 9800GTX and can run Witcher 2 on Medium just fine (which still looks amazing).

My argument is that the marketing baffles me, obviously the market for PC games is huge because the hardware already exists in most of the households.

Well, yes. The logical choice would be to think that since most PCs are more powerful that current consoles (or they require an upgrade that anyone can do) and more numerous, they have to be the most popular platform, but, most people don't use their PCs to play video games. It comes to how the majority chooses to play rather than the potential that computers have to run them.

The majority plays Farmville on Facebook.

Cheap and accessible always wins.

See my edit in the previous post on what i mean.

 

[Uncompetative]

I don't even know what's going on, your poll, the quote and your original post all seem to tackle 3 completely different things.

I agree. None of this makes any sense to me.

All I can advise is that you spend less time on Facebook.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Oh hey guys I noticed a fire over here and...

Oh, right, it's this shit again. Carry on.

 

[EbonBehelit]

Ah, the age-old debate continues...

As far as I'm concerned - purely from a gaming perspective - a PC is basically a more powerful console with the versatility to match. However, a PC has harsher upkeep than a console and has more far more room for problems occurring.

A console is basically a stable platform based on slightly obsolete hardware dedicated for the purpose, and designed as such to minimize required knowledge to keep running. The costs of a console are pretty much ALWAYS lower than a decent gaming PC, and this enables a lower bar of entry for casual users, as well as less headaches along the way.

Neither is superior, as they both work for their intended purpose. The only place this diverts is with the inherent superiority of KB+Mouse over a gamepad for certain game types (FPS & RTS), and vice-versa (Fighters, platformers).

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Hardware completely rapes all the consoles combined. As for games, PC gamers seem to get the short end of the stick a lot because developers just port things over now.

Most of console gamers are tired with PC gamers expecting everybody to pay $2000 for things to look shiny.

Mine wasn't even that much, and I maxed the thing out since I'm a software developer and use it for a server, along with gaming. You can even get an Alienware for less than $1,000.

Why would you BUY a gaming PC?

I didn't, I built it. Not all at once either. And what is wrong with that (guess I'm not getting the question)?

Buying an Alienware or an Ibuypower pc is a horrible value.

Actually, I did buy an Alienware laptop, and it was cheaper than other computers (ASUS mostly) that I was looking at, which is why I bought it.

 

[Bad Jim]

PC is inferior? Hell no. Put a recent cross platform title side by side on the different platforms. The PC version will be clearly better.

Generally a recently released console will beat all but the most tricked out PCs. But the current generation is half a decade old and loses to all but the cheapest PCs.

A new console generation is overdue, which would make consoles better. But until then . . .

 

[2ndblackjedi]

I voted potatoes cause you can't boil, mash or stick a PC in a stew.

 

[adamtm]

The majority plays Farmville on Facebook, on their PC.

EDIT to expand my answer: I see the future market requiring no particular hardware, with the rise of WebGL or UNITY that can run in a browser with a plugin. These engines already deliver some very impressive graphics for browser games and can be played full-screen (Drakensang Online: http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/4445736/img/ttt/gggr.jpg )
This seems like the logical step forward for AAA. Its always-on DRM because you need a connection, the dev has constant control over the content and patching, the user can play with plug and play from any device capable of handling the game, there is no distribution, no licensing fees for the platform, no boxes to be shipped, no hardware-platform to be taken into account or ported.

It's the next logical step, forget about platforms altogether and just send the content to the player no matter what he is using to play, TV, PC, cellphone, whatever. Problem is, everyone wants to be the one charging for the service. That's why Sony bought Ericsson and Microsoft is trying to push Metro for all that it's worth. Before we had enough power in our pockets to run AAA video games it was all about who had the larger piece of the pie, now it's like an open buffet and everybody wants to be the fat man.

If can be more specific about it, I find the whole idea of cloud gaming or video-streaming for games (OnLive) is the wrong direction. I find cloud-services to be the wrong path in every single sense and essentially impractical solutions to a non-existing problem.

 

[Sewer Rat]

Yeah, sorry, but saying that a game 'looks like a pc game' is not an insult. A good gaming PC is actually capable of making games much prettier then those on current consoles. Hell, my laptop which was not built specifically for gaming is able to run games at the same quality as a PS3. This isn't to say that console gaming is bad, but the hardware in a good pc beats everything in this generation of consoles. Of course though, the issue with PC gaming is that it's inconsistent. With a console, you know you will be able to run every game at pretty much the same level of quality with minimal FPS drops, this is not tru for PC gaming where you do have to do your research to see if you can even play the game. It really is an inane argument though, go with what you like. I will say this though, from my experience the online community in PC games is MUCH more mature and friendly then consoles.

 

[Worgen]

I have the joy of having both consule and PC.

I find that consule for me, works better for FPS. PC works better for strategy and MMORPG.

Yeah, those precise controls and speed of the gamepad... oh wait.

The only thing consoles are better for are racing games and fighting games, and the pc can be better for racing games if it has a wheel.

I can also say that games like Assassin's Creed also play a BIT better on gamepad.

Not consoles. We can use all kinds of controls. They have gamepad, and "motion control", heuheuhuehue.

PC gamers expecting everybody to pay $2000 for things to look shiny.

Yeah except that most PC gamers will call you an idiot if you pay that much for a PC, but hey, don't let reality get in your way.

I can probably buy two godlike PCs for $1000 each, or three incredibly good PCs for $2000 total. And by buy I mean build myself.

Actually I have to take my point back, no game plays better on the console now that control pads tend to work with the pc, thanks usb connectors. I guess the only point consoles have over the pc is that publishers haven't yet made drm horrible on them, but you can rest assured they are working on it and chances are the next generation of consoles will be pretty damn user unfriendly in the used game department.