The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race

[svenjl]

Just the idea of next gen is starting to make me feel sick and soiled. All those poor people who came away from the PS4 and Xbone reveals covered in corporate bullshit. I used to PC game, but couldn't afford to upgrade after finishing uni and having kids etc. So I got a 360 and have never looked back except for the occasional bout of Battlefront II, Modern Warfare, and KOTOR on my wife's new laptop ;-)

My 2008 Xbox has never hit a hurdle, and was still faithfully chugging away last night. Buy a game, open the box, put the disc in the tray, press A and the next 2 hours are glory. I'm going to keep this gen alive by buying a PS3 next year and working through a backlog of Sony exclusives, aside from the great list I still have for the Xbox. This is gaming at it's most simple and effective (my opinion). F**k the internet requirements, Kinnect and anyone who tries to handcuff used games sales.

 

[Elate]

But as ive said to many people. Consoles are for gamers who enjoy playing games. PC's are for people that want top of the range graphic, high def and 60fps.

I can't play console games anymore. The shitty 30FPS and below are horrible. I see flickering, lines, and it makes me nauseous. I need the FPS to be at least 40 for my eyes and brain.

So games at 60FPS are awesome, and smooth. Plus I dont feel like throwing up

Similar problem, I see the lack of AA on console games. The poor definition makes me strain my eyes to hurting point, monitors are just more crisp. Combine that with unresponsive controllers, horrible FoV, and aforementioned crappy frame rate which makes it feel even MORE unresponsive.. Consoles, for me, are just a test of patience, I can't/don't enjoy playing anything on them.

 

[accipitre]

'Been PC gaming since 2004. Happily PC gaming ever since, non stop.

And no, a decent PC gaming isn't as expensive as many people belive, at least if you choose the right components.

This.

A year and a half ago, I spent $700 on what was then a standard late 2011 built - i5 2500k, p67 chipset (cheap mobo), GTX560ti. I won't feel obligated to upgrade the processor for another three years minimum, I might drag it out to four with the power of overclocking. The GPU is good for another two years easily, and 4 if I'm frugal and don't care about running future games on mid-high settings (I do happen to care, so I'll upgrade probably after the GTX8** series hits). My hard drives are transferable. My power supply and case are transferable. My mobo will need an upgrade if I decide to SLI or upgrade my CPU, neither of which are likely to happen within 3-4 years.

In the meantime, I get the resolution of my choice. I get to decide which peripherals I want - inform me when the Xbone can interface with a 20-year-old keyboard and the gamepad of my choice. I get a vast library of games, and - get this: Consoles brag about their exclusive titles. The Master Race gets entire exclusive fucking genres - MOBA, RTS, and MMORPG spring to mind. I get MULTIPLE FUCKING MONITORS. Have you ever used a dual-monitor computer? Triple-monitor? There's nothing like it. Call me in 7 years when consoles can do that too (my response will be to use 6 monitors for the sake of e-peen).

Plus I get mods. I just spent five hours playing a poorly-translated, buggy, hardcore mod for S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Call of Pripyat. It was fucking awesome. I squeezed about a hundred extra hours out of Skyrim just from mods. I've gotten more gameplay out of Mount&Blade mods than I have from vanilla. I get to play titles like EYE: Divine Cybermancy, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R, and League of Legends, and ARMA... the list goes on.

I can run whatever operating system I want. I can play more PS2 games than the PS3 can. I can run emulators for most platforms out there. If I don't have an emulator and I have the knowhow, I can make my own, ffs! Qemu is a beautiful thing. I can dig out decade-old CDs, install them, and play games I loved when I was a kid. I can trade my disks with my friends, or use Steam and have all the cloud features that the current console gen brags about... and I don't have to pay for service, I get a platform for chatting and forming groups, and I get really awesome sales on a regular basis where I can pick up AAA titles for half off, or more.


Cost? Heh. I've saved enough via Steam Sales alone to make up the difference between buying a console and buying my PC. And if I don't want to, I don't have to upgrade my computer for 4 years, and I'll still be able to play modern titles. 2017, I can play new releases. I could probably hold out even longer if I settled for low settings. How much will you spend when your controller dies or you get the RROD and have to buy a replacement because you got screwed by microshaft's warranty system? How much will you spend on Xbox Live, when I just have to pay my internet bill? Sure, now you can access Facebook and watch Netflix now on your console... but I've been able to do that all along (it's nice to be able to alt-tab out and stay connected).

Yeah, and all this was for a mere $700. And that's because I splurged on the case and power supply, bought a new monitor, and went with an SSD in addition to my 1.5tb storage drive (gotta keep that anime somewhere... speaking of which, don't you plebs still have to transcode your movies to watch them on console?)

I can't play console games anymore. The shitty 30FPS and below are horrible. I see flickering, lines, and it makes me nauseous. I need the FPS to be at least 40 for my eyes and brain.

So games at 60FPS are awesome, and smooth. Plus I dont feel like throwing up

Similar problem, I see the lack of AA on console games. The poor definition makes me strain my eyes to hurting point, monitors are just more crisp. Combine that with unresponsive controllers, horrible FoV, and aforementioned crappy frame rate which makes it feel even MORE unresponsive.. Consoles, for me, are just a test of patience, I can't/don't enjoy playing anything on them.

30 FPS is disgusting. And yeah, no AA is a massive boner-killer. Most console games render at pitifully low resolutions and then upscale each frame in the hopes that you're sitting back from the TV and won't notice. That's why it looks disgusting if you hook a console up to a 1080p monitor and play with your face as close to it as it would be with a PC.

 

[JudgeGame]

It's a strange world where ilegally archiving ROM hacks is objectively a noble cause of historical preservation. It's just baffling to me how little companies care for their own products safety. I remember how shocked I was when I found out Konami had managed to lose all their source code for Silent Hill 1, 2 & 3. Compared to the present state of the industry, it's practically standard protocol.

Seriously this is some fascist-dystopia, book burning bullshit.

 

[-Dragmire-]

No one's ever made such a convincing argument for PC gaming before. To be honest, I have always been a console gamer, I generally find them easier to use and cheaper, although I do have a crappy laptop for indie titles, but after reading this I'm seriously considering forking out for a decent gaming PC.

attaching the cpu is the hardest part. get on youtube/forums if youre doing it alone

That part always freaks me out, I go for bare bones sets for the power supply, motherboard and cpu and add the easy stuff like ram, gpu, hdds and sound card. Costs a bit more than getting them separate but less than buying a tower with everything.

Just ordered a GTX 660, gonna be quite the improvement from my GTX 260. Uses less power too!

 

[Twinmill5000]

Something compels me to post in this thread.

I'm going to be quaint. I work in customer service, and I meet alot of people who you'd consider 'casual gamers'. They're usually middle aged, have kids, and aren't exactly part of the core audience. Gaming is not their thing, they have 60 hour workweeks and a daughter to take care of, and while gaming used to be a favored pastime, they might be able to cram in 6 hours a week, at most. Granted, that's nowhere near their physical limit, they see gaming as a method of having fun, not a hobby.


And while I don't consider those people core gamers, and hell, some of them I have to resist to urge to call idiots. But they have one thing, at the absence of another. They have money. Lots of money. At the absence of time. And their kids, their kids have a large portion of that money presumably dedicated to them.


What I'm getting at is that the XBone will do well. Microsoft will rake in sales, just not from the gamer audience. See, core gamers, people who have any sort of semblance of passion to gaming, are the ones who dislike the new generation. Why? Quite simply, MS, at the very least MS, has given up on them. They know they will never make the core audience happy if they try to compete with the growing PC market. So they switched their target demographic.


Suddenly, it's less about the games, as it is about convincing people that they have time to play games still, and hey, if you don't, you can still use our console for everything else. And you'll buy it, because you have very little time to do research and lots of money.


That type of mentality seems flawed, until you realize that that demographic is very real, and very prominent. Every warehouse worker that considers themselves 'tech savvy' enough to own a smartphone and use it as something other than one of dem tele-phones, is going to buy an XBone. I guarantee it. Anyone, who works more than 40 hours a week, and doesn't work in any high functioning technical field, will probably own one too.


What about you and me? Well, I can't speak for you, but I won't own one. I've got other things in my budget, and am already a dedicated PC gamer. Actually, I think that most core gamers in this generation, whether they wanted to be PC-centric or not, will get into PC gaming and power using in general.


While this other demographic will happily get boned by the XBone, and regardless of whether or not they're aware of it, the majority of them will not care, and probably, like the 'core' audience in the last generation, refute PC gaming because it's 'too hard' to get into.


Hah, my ass.


As long as your PC's set up by anyone above the level of 'trained monkey' or 'corporate relations rep' and uses just baseline software, Steam will install the necessary requirements for your game, if Windows Update hasn't already.

 

[infohippie]

"A top-of-the-range desktop PC costs a lot more, but I wouldn't just be paying to buy into the new games club. I'd be paying for an entire history of games, safely filed away on GOG.com and the Steam listings."

No it's still not worth it Yahtzee. Not when it costs thousands of dollars for a man to accomplish. Shame on you and everyone who agrees with this. I'd like my games to be affordable without having to buy a bunch of random pieces that cost the price of an actual console.

Forget PC, it's the handheld market that's the true master race.

OMG I am getting so freaking tired of seeing this FUD. PC gaming is no more expensive than console gaming. Anyone who thinks it is is still stuck in the early 2000s. Take the cost of the cheap crappy PC you would buy to write posts on forums, add the current cost of a current-gen console, and that figure will build you a decent little gaming PC. Not cutting edge, sure, but still significantly more capable than any current console. When the next gen consoles are finally released, it might even work out significantly cheaper to build a PC that can outperform them. But please, stop with this notion that PC gaming is "too expensive" or "too complicated" because it hasn't been for most of a decade now.

 

[bjj hero]

Its easy to understand when the post following yours has the poster spending £1200 on his rig (thats $1800 at current exchange rate) and the next post says he spent $1200 on his current PC. He then goes on to say that you can now buy a "passable gaming computer" for "only" $700.

It's a shockingly simple mind that can't understand that, unlike the console market, PC's can be built to match the exact specifications, or budgetary constraint, of the given consumer. A person, provided they have the money, can build a multiple-thousand-dollar gaming rig just as easily as a person, provided they have the diligence and gumption, can build a decent gaming PC on the cheap.

Thats fine and Dandy but comments like those will put people off trying or even looking into it. If you like gaming but have never built a PC before these comments, that go up daily anywhere gamers congregate, will most likely scare you off looking into it.

Thats why you constantly hear PCs are more expensive. My brothers PC was put together for around the price of a lauchday console and runs whatever he wants to play but you dont read these sort of stories on the forums.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

No one's ever made such a convincing argument for PC gaming before. To be honest, I have always been a console gamer, I generally find them easier to use and cheaper, although I do have a crappy laptop for indie titles, but after reading this I'm seriously considering forking out for a decent gaming PC.

attaching the cpu is the hardest part. get on youtube/forums if youre doing it alone

That part always freaks me out, I go for bare bones sets for the power supply, motherboard and cpu and add the easy stuff like ram, gpu, hdds and sound card. Costs a bit more than getting them separate but less than buying a tower with everything.

Just ordered a GTX 660, gonna be quite the improvement from my GTX 260. Uses less power too!

the sense of accomplishment is imense first time you do it

i can only speak for AMD, but theres a tiny triangle on one corner of the socket to show what corner of the CPU goes there (and by default, the other 3 corners are then inplace)
and youse thermal grease instead of the silver stuff if you're scared you'll be messy and get it on the mother boeard

 

[Alar]

"A top-of-the-range desktop PC costs a lot more, but I wouldn't just be paying to buy into the new games club. I'd be paying for an entire history of games, safely filed away on GOG.com and the Steam listings."

No it's still not worth it Yahtzee. Not when it costs thousands of dollars for a man to accomplish. Shame on you and everyone who agrees with this. I'd like my games to be affordable without having to buy a bunch of random pieces that cost the price of an actual console.

Forget PC, it's the handheld market that's the true master race.

Don't most people have PCs these days anyway...? Mine cost me $1,000 roughly about four or five years ago. With a few minor upgrades I could be playing more modern games with high graphics and all the bells and whistles, but it works fine for somewhat older games, or lower settings.

Spending $1,000 now would get you a relatively higher end model.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Hm, I'm still more interested in PS4 than PC. Console is supposed to be - no settings and no fiddling around required. Put the game in and play. As for xbox, MS consoles were shit, are shit and will be shit and I don't really give a shit.
Well, shit that's a lot of shit in one post.

But that's really not the case anymore is it. Especially with a game published by Sony. Then you have to punch in some code, wait for patches to download, set the brightness, then if you bought it at launch, you probably have a bunch more codes to punch in to get the "bonus" pre-order dlc. It would be forgivable if they at least tried to add some of the benefits of playing on a PC, like mods for example.
The only reason I have a console is I like to play games with people in the same room as well as online. PC games (even though many hook a pc up to the tv) rarely have a splitscreen option. If I only liked to play single player like Yahtzee, I probably wouldn't have a console at all.

...Which is all absolutely horrible and I hope they realize that with PS4 (so far they said positive things, we'll see how it turns out). Thing is, I don't want to bother with PCs with those driver updates and compatibility issues. For the most part I've been using notebook in recent years and I've never updated any drivers on. This is whole load of shit you have to download from some site, and with PC it's often separate drivers for every part... I don't wanna ever have to do anything with it. At least PS3 just asks you to push ok once if it wants to update something.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Yup just pop it in and play. Just pop it in, connect to the internet, log into your xb live/sony account, download console updates, punch in your 16-digit code, install the game, download the patches, and play. Ah...convenience.

So you don't need to connect to steam to play your games? And you don't need patches? You also don't need to update your machine/s software every few months? Not to mention no problematic DRM? Wow PC's where it's at huh?

Yep you're right downloading new disc keys that let you watch newer movies with different anti-piracy software and add emulators to the console is so inconvenient. Also physical discs that don't need an online connection to work? Who needs that? Freaking casuals, that's who.

I wonder if the sarcasm will get through... Let me know will ya?

 

[A'tuin]

Man, the next page button is so small, so hidden, I'd say without joking that probably 80% of readers didn't see the article's conclusion.

Whoah, thanks! No wonder I was confused when people started talking about some Bertha and AC4. They should really make the next page button larger.

 

[Athinira]

Hm, I'm still more interested in PS4 than PC. Console is supposed to be - no settings and no fiddling around required. Put the game in and play. As for xbox, MS consoles were shit, are shit and will be shit and I don't really give a shit.
Well, shit that's a lot of shit in one post.

With the exception of games catalogue and it's massive size, the original Xbox actually outshined the PS2 in pretty much every way possible (despite there only being one year between them):
[ul][li]It had stronger graphics and CPU and more RAM - all adding up to, amongst other things, lower loading times and better looking games.[/li]
[li]It had an internal harddrive (way better and faster than memory-cards, although PS2 got the HD option as an addon later)[/li]
[li]It didn't make make annoying noises when loading from the DVD[/li]
[li]It had better online MP options (despite the price tag, Xbox Live was actually really good at the time)[/li]
[li]The controllers were - at least IMO, although I've heard others tout the same - superior, a preference that has been carried on to the current generation according to an Escapist forum poll [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.385911-Poll-Which-is-more-comfortable-The-Xbox-360-Controller-or-the-PS3-Controller?view_results=1].[/li][/ul]

Considering it was their first stab at the market with Sony having a good headstart, Microsoft actually made a pretty damned good console. I've had a lot of fun with both consoles, but the Xbox was definitely the better console than the PS2, who only won because it had a stronger game-publisher support.

As for the current generation, I'd say the Xbox 360 started out ahead of the PS3, but that the PS3 actually caught up and ended up as the superior console this generation. Despite it's age, the PS3 really is a strong beast with a slick design, and only the controllers really still leave something to be decided on the hardware level.

As for the new generation.... Well, it all looks like a pile of crap to me, but since I'm actually part of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race, it's all the same to me anyway !! )

 

[Airon]

Now there is an argument for gaming PCs that stands out far and wide from tech discussions.

All the games there ever were, on your PC.

Steambox may be one of them, I hope.

 

[Lightknight]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, no. Consoles are optimized in entirely different ways than pc's. The same specs you see in a console do not line up with a pc tower containing the same hardware. There is architecture in those boxes that really is next-gen technology despite the hardware being average. So you're likely looking at a mid-high range equivalent.

If you want to talk about the consoles' processing ability, sure. The Wii U's 1GB of available RAM, the Xbone's 5GB, and the PS4's 8GB of integrated memory, isn't going to stretch very far especially for the latter two when Sony and Microsoft are talking a standard of 4KP resolution.

Ram isn't everything when CPU/GPUs are around. Even then, it's above the current average machine even being sold, let alone being above the pcs already in the average gamer's (aka, the consumer's) homes. There's a reason why the pc version of Skyrim was a 2GB RAM minimum requirement and it isn't just because of the ps3/360 holding it back as it certainly scaled up.

That's fine now, but it's going to be a serious constraint moving forward compared to PC's, especially as PC's operating systems are trending towards greater optimization and already have a standard of 9-10GB of total RAM.

I'm going to call shenanigans and ask for citation here, please. 4-8GB is the current norm from what I've seen and as a computer tech I've seen a lot. The adoption of 64-Bit machines is quickly leading to the adoption of 8GB setups but isn't necessarily the norm yet considering the number of gamers still in 32-bit environments and games are generally still being made to work on less than 4GB for that reason. Skyrim's minimum requirments were 2GB so a 4GB system was nice (with this . As such, the 8GB DDR5 range for the ps3 and even the 5GB of the Xbone fall within desireable limits. Don't get me wrong, my home pc has 16GB in it and can take another 16GB if I should see the need. 9-10GB is an arbitrary and likely wrong number as RAM generally comes in 2GB, 4GB, and 8GB increments with some 16GB options. Not a whole lot of combinations to get you to 9 or 10, especially when the recommendation is to combine the exact same models in computer construction such that the norms usually follow binary progression starting at 2 (2,4,8,16,32). You see numbers like 6 or 12 when slots are left blank (for example, three 2GB or three 4GB RAM sticks on a motherboard with 4 slots). Almost all of the remaining 1GB sticks I've seen are DDR2 or lower and so not even compatible with DDR3 or even able to fit into the same slots. You then have to make sure other stats of the RAM line up or you'll just get a blue screen. You can mix the mHz but then you'll only be as good as your slowest stick as the computer will underclock the rest.

So, I believe the number to have been pulled that number out of thin air or from your own personal experience rather than any aggregate data. If you can show me the source I'd like to see what their thinking is.

For example, Amazon is a reasonable source to use for this kind of data of what the normal pc specs are on today's market.

Out of 9,161 distinct desktops (at the time of this post), only 5,347 are sortable by RAM. Of which, only 1,733 are 6GB or higher. That's around 1/3rd but by no means the norm as 4GB or lower makes up the other 66% with 4GB itself being another 3rd. This roughtly puts 4GB at still being the average but probably still leaning up. Laptops lean much more strongly towards 4GB with 4GB being 50% of the total laptop market and 6GB or higher being 29%.

So, even if you believed that the 6GB or higher was code for 9-10GB, it would certainly not be the norm yet. It is still the norm to have 4GB in your machine. As such, the Xbone and ps4 should expand the market as games become more demanding. But since the pc market has increased so much in the gaming arena due to console specs lagging, we may see the 2GB minimum requirements for years to come.

 

[Antari]

Thankfully I view software for what it is. A series of instructions. It does not matter if those instructions are carried out by a calculator, a desktop calculator, a living room calculator, or a bathroom calculator. Its still a calculator. And it still requires skill and dedication to make a good set of instructions. Otherwise your just barking out orders, leading people down corridors. Is there a PC master race? Well probably yes, but it likely involves a steering wheel.

 

[Kinitawowi]

Also: to the people in love with PC's backwards compatability, please tell me how to get Civilisation 2 working on 64-bit Windows 7 - it's wrecked support for most 16-bit apps.

Depends on which version of Civ2 you have.
Only the very first release was 16 bit.

More info here.
http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Civilization_II

My copy looks like this:

The installer immediately yells "not compatible", as does the standalone CIV2.EXE. The readme identifies the date as February 15, 1996. I think this all translates as 16-bit original; your link suggests that it can't be done and I'm best off buying the Multiplayer Gold Edition instead (hmm, pay out for a new updated release to run a game I already paid for and own on a modern system? Where have I been hearing about this recently? ;-)

Seriously, this shit is almost as bad as Pod.

 

[tardcore]

Also: to the people in love with PC's backwards compatability, please tell me how to get Civilisation 2 working on 64-bit Windows 7 - it's wrecked support for most 16-bit apps.

Depends on which version of Civ2 you have.
Only the very first release was 16 bit.

More info here.
http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Civilization_II

My copy looks like this:

The installer immediately yells "not compatible", as does the standalone CIV2.EXE. The readme identifies the date as February 15, 1996. I think this all translates as 16-bit original; your link suggests that it can't be done and I'm best off buying the Multiplayer Gold Edition instead (hmm, pay out for a new updated release to run a game I already paid for and own on a modern system? Where have I been hearing about this recently? ;-)

Seriously, this shit is almost as bad as Pod.

Doesn't matter, Windows XP mode using virtual PC is easy to set up and completely free to most Windows 7 users. I use it to play all my really old games and abandonware programs. Give it look up on Google.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

"A top-of-the-range desktop PC costs a lot more, but I wouldn't just be paying to buy into the new games club. I'd be paying for an entire history of games, safely filed away on GOG.com and the Steam listings."

No it's still not worth it Yahtzee. Not when it costs thousands of dollars for a man to accomplish. Shame on you and everyone who agrees with this. I'd like my games to be affordable without having to buy a bunch of random pieces that cost the price of an actual console.

Forget PC, it's the handheld market that's the true master race.

If someone is informed enough, and has the disposable income to fufill this hobby why should I stop that person from the hobby. I'd say go ahead.

People have a misconception about Gaming PCs. Not every rig needs to be self assembled by the user piece by piece with every part at top price. That's only for the hardcore.

How most people I know do this:

1. Go on Craigslist
2. Search local listings for Gaming PCs (most decent ones are between $150-$500.)
3. Bring a friend for backup so you don't get mugged or have your kidneys harvested.
4. Buy the computer, and replace a part that needs it. (Usually the hard drive or SDD, and graphics card.)
5. Profit