So what is the advantage of a console?

[Sight Unseen]

So what is the other side? Is there any possible advantage consoles have that PCs do not? Because I honestly can't think of any. The only one I've ever seen brought out is "simplicity" and while that argument maybe had some ground to stand on in 2001 or so, it doesn't stand up at all nowadays.

How did that argument lose ground? Plugging my console into my TV with a controller is a lot easier than doing that with my PC. Also you never have to worry about compatibility issues, you put a game in and it works. I use both and I prefer my console since I don't have to spend hours fiddling with it to get it to work.

Unless you're playing Skyrim on the PS3.


OT: Because consoles have Rock Band on them. That's the only reason I still play on my xbox.

 

[The Harkinator]

How many PC gamers can say a PC they had when the Xbox 360 and PS3 were initially released still plays all the new releases without having to spend lots of money on hardware upgrades?

Consoles from 2007 can play The Witcher 2 and unmodified PCs from 2007 probably can't.

 

[Tiberiu Paul Iordache]

Indeed the easier to use aspect is appealing.

There is also the aspect of money. Being a PC gamer means you have to update your PC's hardware about two, maybe even three times a year so you can play all the latest games. That is really expensive when you start to add up all the money spent for a gaming PC. With a console, until now it's been "Spend 200-300 dollars now and you're set for playing games for the next 5, maybe 10 years!" And I'm saying this because I know some of the latest graphic cards cost more than a console. Overall it's less expensive.

 

[Joccaren]

Oh god. That guy was right. The return of the PC vs Console threads is nigh!
Well, time to set up my chair:

Well, I'll bite on one thing here. There are a number of comments saying "I know what's compatible with my system. I just go buy and Xbox/PS3/Wii and I know what I put on there will work, with a PC you have to worry about too many things like which OS you're running".

This might stand some ground, if you weren't so lazy. Yes, I'm calling you lazy - but only towards PCs. Its the whole multiple OS versions and types that got me on this warpath, so its them this is mostly directed to.

Provided you use your PC for purely gaming, like you would your console, you should have no more problem playing games on it than you do on your console.
"But I can just put a game in and it will run! I would never have any idea with a PC".
Ok then, put a Wii game in your Xbox and tell me if it runs. No? Good.
Of course, that probably seems like common sense to you. Which is why I call you lazy now.
Another example. Put a PS2 game in a non-backwards compatible PS3 version. Does it run? No?
Again, your laziness.

This is the same thing that you are criticizing PC games for and that makes them inaccessible. You buy a Mac PC, or you buy a Windows one [Or Linux, but that's far rarer]. You have Windows Xp, Vista, 7 or 8 on it [Or the other OS equivalents].
This is comparable to Buying an Xbox console, or a Playstation one [Or a Wii, but rarer these days]. You can buy a PS1, PS2 or PS3 [Or the other brand equivalents].
If you can't tell whether it will run on your system, you are seriously just lazy. It even says on the box "For Windows XP/Vista/7". Its there.

Drivers are an entirely different kettle of fish, but I generally would compare them to updating your console firmware - only you don't have to do it [It can help, but I've had one game that I've had to actually do it for].
Generally I get the feeling that these problems come from people trying to run games on a really old machine, or one that they recently reloaded/upgraded. I again compare this to buying an old console your friend bought on release day but never plugged in once, and going to play it. Firmware updates are required.

I will put it out there that getting games to work on PC is more time consuming than getting them to run on console - especially if you custom build - but that is becoming less and less true with time, thanks to developments such as SSDs. It is not, however, harder. You turn your PC on, you check put the CD in, install/run dependent on game and if you have it installed already or not, and if it doesn't work you update drivers. Beyond that its going to be an issue with something you've done with your PC outside of gaming - IMO comparable to turning your console into a 'Jailbroken' one with Homebrew OS on it [Which I believe I've used the wrong terms here, and is illegal, but you want a dedicated gaming machine you can use your PC as a dedicated gaming machine], or a problem on the devs end that I've found to be as common in the console games I've played as on the PC.

 

[Joccaren]

There is also the aspect of money. Being a PC gamer means you have to update your PC's hardware about two, maybe even three times a year so you can play all the latest games. That is really expensive when you start to add up all the money spent for a gaming PC. With a console, until now it's been "Spend 200-300 dollars now and you're set for playing games for the next 5, maybe 10 years!" And I'm saying this because I know some of the latest graphic cards cost more than a console. Overall it's less expensive.

I hate seeing this argument bought up, as it is 100% false. Up until six months ago I was running new games like BF3 on mid to maximum settings using a PC from 8 years ago.

Saying you need to upgrade your PC 2 to 3 times a year is like saying you need to buy a new TV and console 2 to 3 times a year. You don't. It can make your game look prettier and run faster, but you really, really don't. Anybody with any level of PC gaming experience will know this.
Its spend $300-$1000 now, and be set to run games consoles couldn't hope of running for the next 8-12 years.

If we're being completely honest here as well, it is consoles that have the generally higher 'maintenance' costs that add up over time thanks to their game prices being higher than PC gaming prices by about $10 usually, not including second hand, Steam, GoG, or any other retailer of such sorts.

Yes some of the latest graphics cards cost more than a console. There are TVs out there that cost half as much as my car that I could buy. You don't need them though, and you don't sound informed if you say you do.

 

[Cowabungaa]

We have motion controls! Yeah, how can you beat that?! [small]nope[/small]

And twice as cheap as Kinect to boot with a dozen more possibilities.

You can plug it into a TV, pop a disc (or cartridge, cassette, possum skull, etc.) in, and play.
No having to be connected to servers, no having to wait for patches to download for hours, no having to deal with compatibility issues (unless you're trying to ram a SNES cart into a PS3), and you can just play.

If only that was still true today. Publishers are making console games more and more a hassle compared to PC games. It's a shame really.

 

[Dyan]

I keep seeing splitscreen as an advantage over the PC and I just don't get it. Now this is all just my own opinion, but I myself hate splitscreen. Mainly because it makes my eyes hurt. So I'd really like to know what's so good about splitscreen?

 

[Towowo]

Primarily because it allows more than one person to use the same screen for multiplayer.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Consoles have a standardized set of hardware, something that PCs do not. If you think that isn't something important, go tell it to a programmer at a major game studio, I'm sure they'd love to hear your opinion.

The downside to this, of course, is that the standardized hardware goes out of date right away and stays there.

And with talk of "moduling" or console upgrades to get around this also-rather-important issue, it looks like proper standardization is going to be history as well.

Well luckily, console games tend to be far more optimized so they don't limb behind too bad and, quiet frankly, look pretty good anyways. It's not like PS2 compared to early PS1, its far more subtle for the difference most of the time. Also, even if console could be adjusted, we'd now be discussing maybe 10, 20 variants at the max for a console as opposed to at least thousands of variants for PCs. It has its downsides, but it is one advantage that PCs can never have and thus a something that consoles have that PCs don't.

 

[Joccaren]

lol, troll thread...

I'm going to assume your being sarcastic with this all, but I'm going to answer them anyway as if you're not being serious with them, I get the feeling some people will be...

OT: No Gaming PC exists that can play new AAA games for less than $300.

/thread FOR THE PAST 8 FUCKING YEARS!

I've already used that False meme, so I'm not going to put it here again.
My PC runs AAA games and it cost me $300 to upgrade. Of course that upgrade was overkill, and it ran AAA games before that, but it was starting to get 30 FPS on Maximum settings for newer games, so I upgraded.
And yes, Upgraded. You upgrade your console every time you buy a new one too. There are some things that you'll just have that you won't need to buy again - like the TV you play it on.

Or do you want to talk about current prices?????

You fail if you think you can buy a gaming PC for $150 that can play current AAA games.

Duh.

Easily. As I said, my $300 upgrade was overkill. Could have just gone for a new GPU for $150 and been done with it. I went for more though. Could it have run everything max settings? No, but even minimum settings on a PC looks and plays better than a Console game.

EDIT: For added fun facts, what developers name PC as the medium of choice for developing games on? CUZ IT ISN'T BETHESDA!!!

Lets see...
Blizzard
The developers of the Total War games
The Developers of the Civilization Series
Ironclad
Want me to go on?
'cause these are just a few PC exclusive developers, and I'm not including people like DICE and Crytek who I CBF looking for the articles with them praising the PC as a platform.
Or how about John Carmak?

"We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games," Carmack added. "That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it.

http://www.gamefront.com/carmack-we-do-not-see-the-pc-as-the-leading-platform-for-games/
I'll take this as half marks as it does say consoles are the lead platform for games, but he says this because they have more gamers. He stated that with "the same amount of resources" they could create an unquestioningly better experience on the PC.

As said, I'm hoping you were being sarcastic with that, but the rules that govern the Internet require me to assume that either you, or someone else who reads this, will take your post seriously as an argument, and there's just too much wrong in it for me to let that pass.

 

[Yopaz]

Well speaking as a PC gamer here.

No difference in hardware meaning it's easier for developers to avoid bugs due to driver issues.
It's easier to operate, no virus, no need to adjust settings, no need to download secondary software to increase performance. For those who aren't good with computers this is pretty good.
Better suited for running on TV, a PC often has some issues with resolution since it's usually adjusted for sitting right in front of the screen.

 

[RevRaptor]

Here's a little story for you.
Today I tried to run a browser game on my pc, not install it just run it. It crashed so bad google search doesn't work for me any more. Gotta do a complete reinstall of my os and firefox to fix it. So now I'm copying all my files off my pc so I can get round to fixing it sometime tomorrow.

I've never had that happen on a console. I want to play a game, I get to play a game right now no messing around.

As far as I'm concerned that's a flawless victory for the console side.

 

[Joccaren]

Then tell the "master race" to quit ballyhoo'ing the graphics if it's not that big a deal.

Ahh, now I remember which thread I saw that post foretelling the return of these threads! Thanks for that.
And you'll find that most of the 'Master Race' don't care that much for graphics. Generally we'll play Indie games, or games from 10 years ago on our machines that look even worse than present day games. When bought up why the PC version of a game is better than the console version however, graphics are a legitimate standpoint as they are better in that regard.

Also, 300 dollars?

Show me a build with a total startup cost of 300 dollars that will run Sleeping Dogs on max settings with the extra HD patch at at least 50fps, and I swear to God, I will burn every console I own on Youtube.

1. Tell me one console that can. You seem to be going for High settings on PC, which is not even close to an even ground to compare them to consoles with.
2. Tell me what you have already, and I'll tell you what to buy. I won't even use the cheapskate resolution exploit you leave yourself open for there, where it'll run at 640*400 resolution with the HD patch at likely 80+ FPS. When I give you prices, I'm not telling you to go out and buy a whole new computer. As I've said above, that's like buying another TV for your console. You upgrade what needs upgrading, so tell me your parts, and I'll tell you what I'd get, and the Australian prices of said items.

 

[Xerxesrogue]

There is one thing I never see used as an argument, although in my opinion is a huge deal within gaming.
Analog movement. The one thing that is a bummer about PC, if stuff like problem solving and upgrading is not a problem to you, is the lack of a standardized analog movement. We have "wasd" (usually) The freaking NES had that precise movement, and consoles today have a fully analog 360 degrees stick.

 

[Entitled]

How did that argument lose ground? Plugging my console into my TV with a controller is a lot easier than doing that with my PC. Also you never have to worry about compatibility issues, you put a game in and it works. I use both and I prefer my console since I don't have to spend hours fiddling with it to get it to work.

The problem I have with the argument is that I can't really differentiate it from the argument that a bicycle is better than a Corvette because it's easier to pick up and ride.

Let me set it up this way: If someone came up with a machine that never crashed, never had hardware compatibility options, and never needed updating, but still did the exact same thing as a PC, then I would call it more convenient than current PCs. But if you made a "PC" that had no modding support or changeable hardware, then it wouldn't be "easier to use" in any real sense; instead, it would just be lacking features. If consoles could offer what the PC does but do it in an easier or more reliable way, then it would be a point on their side. But just taking out something and saying, "See, now it's more accessible!" strikes me as the worst kind of positive spin on a blatant negative.

Yes, I agree with that. To use a maybe even better analogy, it's like saying that movies are "better" than books, because they take less time, and you don't have to focus on words, have a complex vocabulary, or use your imagination, you can just relax and watch.

Yes, all of these are true, and they prove why movies are more CONVENIENT than books, but convenience doesn't equal quality.

Note, that I'm not saying that books are better than movies either, convenience has it's rightful place. But any kind of statement about how that convienience gives it an ADVANTAGE, would be the the worst kind of anti-intellectual posturing, by shunning more knowledge as some elitist niche for obsessive fanboys, and glorifying ignorance as "normal, and reasonable level of skills, from us, normal and reasonable folks".

I, as a PC gamer, can have better graphics than you through a series of hardware upgrades, and more complex and diverse gameplay than you, through genres that utilize mouse and keyboard settings, modding, and having an open platform that doesn't lock out any developers.

You, as a console gamer might say that you don't want to get into gaming that seriously, and you are fine with more simplified gaming only, but by spinning that into how your platform is actually BETTER because the console publisher held back the graphics at a standard level, or locks out any modified or unauthorized game, to protect you from the dangers of freedom, you are promoting your own lack of knowledge as something desirable, while it is just that: a lack of knowledge.

 

[Joccaren]

There is one thing I never see used as an argument, although in my opinion is a huge deal within gaming.
Analog movement. The one thing that is a bummer about PC, if stuff like problem solving and upgrading is not a problem to you, is the lack of a standardized analog movement. We have "wasd" (usually) The freaking NES had that precise movement, and consoles today have a fully analog 360 degrees stick.

This is usually not bought up as you can plug a controller into the PC and get said movement.
Also, the mouse could likely be configured to run as an analogue movement controller [Hell, it is for Jets in BF games, and to some extent helicopters]. Of course that would reduce aiming in FPS, so maybe plug a joystick in instead, as they're another option.
In general WASD movement I haven't found to be greatly less precise than with an analogue stick, except in racing games. This is likely partially due to necessity - as the games that rely on purely WASD for movement generally don't need more - and the fact that in games like FPS, the mouse - a more precise controller than an analogue stick - is used to determine facing, and WASD are just for which direction you want to strafe/walk, whilst the mouse is your turning.

 

[Bvenged]

Really, if you know what you're doing, the console has no advantage over the PC.

HOWEVER, the "PC 133T" seem to forget that not everyone has their knowledge. Yeah, it's real easy to build a computer...if you know how to build a computer.

I for one know nothing about graphic cards, cooling systems, power source, "insert computer part #32115 here". I don't know how to tell if the game will run on my system. For someone like me, plugging a 360 in, plugging it into the internet to download a patch, and then playing my game is far simpler than dealing with the issues a PC brings to the table.

Could I learn the PC stuff? Probably but I like my console and I don't feel like doing the work to figure out a PC. I have the odd STEAM game but consoles are just my primary source of gaming.

BAM, there's why consoles are still used so much, and will continue to be used for a very long time.

I game on both, but predominantly on console because that's where my friends are at; they play consoles because they simply don't want to learn everything about PC's and they don't want to blow a fortune at an average computer at PCWorld or Alienware.

I also can't afford a decent gaming computer, so there's my second reason (but not really an advantage) to gaming on console. Just because I have a shitty computer and play mostly on console, doesn't stop me from playing old PC games such as RCT2/3, UT2004 or The Movies every day though, does it? So what "gamer" am I in this stupid 2-sided war the internet's pointlessly waging?

 

[RedDeadFred]

Exclusives (more that I care about anyway)

Cheaper and no upgrading

WAAAAY more portability

Play with friends split screen

Relax on the couch

Oh and last but probably the biggest reason of all: NO DRM!!!!

 

[Myndnix]

Consoles have games that the PC doesn't. And vice versa.
I never understood why so many people boil the debate down to hardware strength. It's about playing video games. Shouldn't what video games you can and cannot play be the important part? Or are there really that few people left who think video games are important when it comes to video gaming?

 

[VoidWanderer]

The main advantage consoles has is that you do not have to worry about if your console can run it.

PC users have to know IF their computer can play it. Console players chuck the disc in and play.