jamesworkshop said:
Why so little PC gamers compared to console gamers?
- Thread starter LightOfDarkness
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In my country a good gaming PC is actually cheaper than Xbox360,PS3 or a Wii
So naturally PC gaming communities in my country are a lot bigger than the console gaming communities,plus PC games are cheaper too (if not cheapest in the world) but the console games price are the same as the rest of the world.
There's even a shopping mall dedicated in selling all things PC gaming related (Walmart of PC gaming,you might say) So yep,My country is PC gaming heaven.
So naturally PC gaming communities in my country are a lot bigger than the console gaming communities,plus PC games are cheaper too (if not cheapest in the world) but the console games price are the same as the rest of the world.
There's even a shopping mall dedicated in selling all things PC gaming related (Walmart of PC gaming,you might say) So yep,My country is PC gaming heaven.
Sorry, should have clarified, a 360 or PS3 to pack into a bag and take over to a friends house then a gaming rig. I'm not saying that a PC is a hassle or anything, just that consoles tend to be a bit easier to pack.mad825 said:I suppose the 360 can be played on the move?helldragonX said:
you cannot compare hand held consoles to desktops as they are two separate things with two different purposes.
however you could compare it to such devices like the Iphone or the "Windows Mobile" but then again "Windows Mobile" is nothing but Minesweeper
With the benefit of the internet behind you, making a PC is easy, it's like cartridges and a few extra wires.octafish said:
My brother works on cars actually, one of the bigger reasons is how tedious it is. And messy. But I get your point, but you don't get mine.
I said you don't have to upgrade your PC every 2 weeks for it to be current, I haven't upgraded my PC in 4+ years and I'm running all the new games still. And no I didn't start out with some super computer.
while i can see and agree to with what you said (nice amount of info by the way), but obviously you roughly have to upgrade your pc every half decade (just like getting the new gen console) therefore thats why i think you should be able to include other consoles too. but if you are getting all the consoles (i.e. your buying the whole current gen.) then yeah pc is definitly cheaper, but i dont know anyone who does that, at least at one purchase.Ultratwinkie said:
2008 yes but PC hardware drops over time as well, the point was that it's not like anyone has had to buy new components made after the 8800Gt to enjoy gamesMetroidNut said:
Console game has always been cheaper but the delta isn't that big, nock down to the standard 1280x720P frame buffer and that machine maintanes 100+ average framerate across all four scenes.
Aside from raw image detail a 60fps game compared to a 30fps suffers from only half the input lag
simplicity. When you buy a computer theres always the chance you have to upgrade your computer to play a game and even if you don't you still need to install the game which while may be easy for most folks can be intimidating to someone new to the PC scene. On the other hand with a console you can play any game for it right out of the box and all you have to do to play it is put the game in. its as easy as working a dvd player.
Damn internet communication isn't working. I'm with you. I think. I'll try an emoticon |-o-| tie fighter, no wait @(o_o)@ Princess Leia, oh this isn't working...Snotnarok said:
I basically said "people are stupid" and it seemed to be taken as "console gamers are stupid" and you and another guy called me out on that. So I tried to clarify things by adressing both your concerns and I guess I just muddied the water. Basically my point is PC's aren't complicated to use, people do it everyday. However people tend to be too lazy/scared/stupid/whatever to even try to learn how to do even basic troubleshooting, even though like cooking or driving a car or reading a map it is a life skill that you will use regularly outside of gaming.
Anyway I was trying to refute the impession that gaming on the PC is in anyway taxing, its not, its actually very straight forward.
Sorry, should have clarified, a 360 or PS3 to pack into a bag and take over to a friends house then a gaming rig. I'm not saying that a PC is a hassle or anything, just that consoles tend to be a bit easier to pack.[/quote]
actually no. all you need to do to play with a friend in to do these steps:
1. turn on the PC.
2. turn on the game.
3. go online.
4. make a lobby.
5. tell him the name and let him join.
6. play.
the same goes for consoles, too, actually.[/quote]
What if a friend doesn't a gold account or has restrictions to their internet usage. My only point was that, if someone wanted to bring his Pc or console over, the console would be easier.
actually no. all you need to do to play with a friend in to do these steps:
1. turn on the PC.
2. turn on the game.
3. go online.
4. make a lobby.
5. tell him the name and let him join.
6. play.
the same goes for consoles, too, actually.[/quote]
What if a friend doesn't a gold account or has restrictions to their internet usage. My only point was that, if someone wanted to bring his Pc or console over, the console would be easier.
Why is the ratio worry you? People can't choose what platform they want to play on and must choose yours instead?
Also, if you honestly believe that there are more dedicated gaming PCs than game consoles....I want what ever you are smoking, but I guess it requires pulling numbers out of your ass.
Also, if you honestly believe that there are more dedicated gaming PCs than game consoles....I want what ever you are smoking, but I guess it requires pulling numbers out of your ass.
Normally I'd stay out of a thread like this because of how quickly it can degenerate into a flamewar, but I do have to mention something that's been bugging me.
A lot of people are citing cost as a big difference, but they are not citing it correctly. A lot of times, people make this comparison:
This is actually a flawed comparison. In reality, you should be doing this:
In other words, the cost you need to be worried about is the cost to change your non-gaming computer into a gaming capable one, not the cost of buying a whole brand new 2nd system. Before someone argues "well what if my current system dies and I need a new one?" consider this: You still would've had to buy a computer anyway, so you are still only looking at the difference between the cost of a new non-gaming and a new gaming system. Nobody here can claim that a computer is not a necessity to his or her life because you would not be reading this thread otherwise.
As the OP mentioned, he turned his system into a gaming machine for $172 worth of parts. Is $172 really prohibitively expensive? I mean, if you just plain do not like the PC for other reasons, that's fine, but if you're even a little curious, ask around and see what it would cost you to get your PC game-ready. There's a bunch of us around here that wouldn't mind answering some questions.
A lot of people are citing cost as a big difference, but they are not citing it correctly. A lot of times, people make this comparison:
Price of console VS Price of gaming computer.
Price of console + non-gaming computer VS price of gaming computer.
In other words, the cost you need to be worried about is the cost to change your non-gaming computer into a gaming capable one, not the cost of buying a whole brand new 2nd system. Before someone argues "well what if my current system dies and I need a new one?" consider this: You still would've had to buy a computer anyway, so you are still only looking at the difference between the cost of a new non-gaming and a new gaming system. Nobody here can claim that a computer is not a necessity to his or her life because you would not be reading this thread otherwise.
As the OP mentioned, he turned his system into a gaming machine for $172 worth of parts. Is $172 really prohibitively expensive? I mean, if you just plain do not like the PC for other reasons, that's fine, but if you're even a little curious, ask around and see what it would cost you to get your PC game-ready. There's a bunch of us around here that wouldn't mind answering some questions.
i'll tell you why I'm a console guy, I'm left handed, and everything about using computers, down to the computer desk, is made for right handers (like everything else in life). simply put, my right hand doesn't have the motor control to do the delicate tasks asked by video games, like clicking on fast moving targets.
I didn't bother to read your wall of text, that is the only bit I cared about.LightOfDarkness said:
Why is it that PC gamers believe their platform is so much more entitled than the consoles?
It is not worrying at all that PC gaming is no longer at top. The reason it was at top in the first place was that it usually had better graphics. Which no longer is an important reason to choose your platform.
That said I'd much rather play a game from the comfort of my couch ratter than my office chair.
Console gaming is generally more relaxing for me to play.
Also, you buy a new console every 3-5 years, and you always the the quality that is shown on the box. If your computer is 5 years old, you can't play... period.
The last point in the previous paragraph is a very valid point. Sure it's not always more expensive, but you need to keep up to date the whole freaking time.
And lets not get into the whole anti piracy thing on the PC.
That said I still like PC gaming, some games cant be played well on console; Wow, RTS' Civ5 (well civ had a console version that was decent)
What?Heatray said:
No.Heatray said:
No.Heatray said:
What?Heatray said:
Video card? No.
Video driver? Not necessarily.
"Back check"? Check what, that the cables are in properly?Heatray said:
No.Heatray said:
Tech support may be generally useless, but a quick Google search can often mean you don't need to bother with people who are trained to ask you if the power cord is plugged in when you first call them. It can be as easy as searching for "xyz (name of game) (type of error)"Heatray said:
This is always a perfectly valid alternative, but not for the reasons you listed.Heatray said:
I also agree with the above comments about mods. I've spent countless hours on mods for cheap games I didn't like that much. Bought Crysis, played through 4 times. 30-40 hours? I've spent 300 hours easily on a mod for Crysis. Doom 3. Played through twice, spent at least 100 hours on a mod for it. The mod argument is a pretty big point in the PC gamer's favour, especially when you factor in full conversion mods, not just 'ubersword 1milliondamage ololol' weapon packs.
I bought STALKER shadow of chernobyl and call of pripyat for US$8.74 a few weeks back. I've never seen a current generation console game that new, for that cheap. I used to have a PSX, loved it. Spent far too many hours on FF7 on it, but eventually moved on to a pc, and if you're careful with your buys, a pc is not expensive to buy. Maintainance (assuming you mean things like software) takes minutes, maybe an hour or two whenever you decide to do it. De-dusting your pc is usually as easy as unscrewing the side, and either blowing using your mouth, or using a compressed air tin to remove dust.
Oh and if you open the pc you built yourself to remove the dust, you don't invalidate your warranty.
Though people will dismiss it, price is certainly a key point. Simply put, keeping up to date with PC hardware is more expensive (and more trouble) than doing the same with consoles. Ease of use is another issue as most people just want to throw a disc into the drive and know it will work without fiddling with drivers and whatnot.
In both cases, the problem is one of cost. In the former, I could simply point out that in the last decade I have spent in excess of 6500 USD on computing hardware. By contrast, in that same time I have purchased an Xbox, PS2, GBA SP, PSP, DS, 360 and PS3 for a grand total of around 2100 USD. To be fair, ~ 2000 USD worth of computing hardware was not intended for playing games and represent the various (3 to be precise) laptops I've used for work and school.
In the latter case, the cost is measured in time. Even if one knows what they're doing, sorting through problems can take hours and for particularly tricky issues spending a few days trying to resolve a problem is not unheard of. Granted, the higher end of the scale is less common these days thanks to the internet and all but that leads to another problem. Without some basic pool of knowledge to draw from, one might have to do a fair amount of research in order to get the information they need to simply figure out what questions they ought to ask regarding the current problem. When faced with such a dilemma, many will simply throw up their hands and move on to a console in the future. With most major releases coming out on consoles as well there is simply no reason not to.
In both cases, the problem is one of cost. In the former, I could simply point out that in the last decade I have spent in excess of 6500 USD on computing hardware. By contrast, in that same time I have purchased an Xbox, PS2, GBA SP, PSP, DS, 360 and PS3 for a grand total of around 2100 USD. To be fair, ~ 2000 USD worth of computing hardware was not intended for playing games and represent the various (3 to be precise) laptops I've used for work and school.
In the latter case, the cost is measured in time. Even if one knows what they're doing, sorting through problems can take hours and for particularly tricky issues spending a few days trying to resolve a problem is not unheard of. Granted, the higher end of the scale is less common these days thanks to the internet and all but that leads to another problem. Without some basic pool of knowledge to draw from, one might have to do a fair amount of research in order to get the information they need to simply figure out what questions they ought to ask regarding the current problem. When faced with such a dilemma, many will simply throw up their hands and move on to a console in the future. With most major releases coming out on consoles as well there is simply no reason not to.
I find this to be a somewhat misleading argument. I assume you are referring to playing every new game at absolutely maximum settings (a bar that keeps rising) without holding the same bar up to a console. I think you'd find if you bought a graphics card that was a bit more powerful than the one in (insert console name)(to make up for the speed bonus a console has by being simpler) and kept the settings relatively equal across all your games, that the price difference in PC part upgrading is suddenly minor to non existant.Eclectic Dreck said:
Apparently my post was a SARCASM FAIL.
My point was that when computers work, it's glorious, but when they don't, it's the most exruciatingly painful experience to figure out why and how to fix it.
The only problem Xbox has is that damn ring of death. Which can be fixed by a $60 trade-in warranty.
My point was that when computers work, it's glorious, but when they don't, it's the most exruciatingly painful experience to figure out why and how to fix it.
The only problem Xbox has is that damn ring of death. Which can be fixed by a $60 trade-in warranty.
The price I cited (~4500 USD) was over the span of 10 years and represented three separate gaming machines. The first was a desktop 1.1 GHz Athlon. Hardware limits (board socket, video slots, memory limit) forced the system to be replaced in 2004 after I had reached the utter limit of what a geForce 3 could do. The next machine was a Pentium 4 running at ~2.5 GHz but it too needed to be replaced due to precisely the same limitations. The current machine I'm using (Phenom X2, Radeon 4870, highly scalable motherboard), cost, in total 900 USD (700 if you discount the new Antec 900 I stuck everything in).SJXarg said:
4000 USD over 10 years isn't all that much money in the grand scheme of things, and the per year price of four hundred bucks is a pittiance, especially considering most of those four hundred dollars were paid at hardware replacement points. In my previous systems, a simple upgrade of a video card (in both cases costing less than a hundred bucks) let me wring another year out of the life of my machine. I expect this machine will handily last another 3 - 4 years barring major hardware failure.
But, just because that price isn't terribly high, it is still substantially more than I paid to keep up to date with MOST of the major consoles including the Xbox (purchased for 200 USD), PS2 (Purchased for 300 USD), PSP (purchased for 200 USD), DS (acquired in exchange for pulling a 24 hour duty while in the service), 360 (400 USD including additional controller accessories), PS3 (400 USD total), and GBA SP (150 USD). Even if we are silly and tack on the extraneous expenses (XBL subscription for example) the cost balloons a few hundred bucks. There is a price difference and what is acceptable to me is not acceptable to many.
But, please, do not simply try to dismiss the difference in cost with a wave of the hand. Its a bad argument that people are simply tired of hearing. The real problem with the argument is this: just because a game can technically run a game (as in it executed the code without error) does not mean it runs the game in a fashion that is acceptable. And, for most people, acceptable would probably be the setting with equal or greater fidelity to the console counterpart. Sure, I could get Saints Row 2 to run on my old machine, but even with the settings so low that you might as well just start digging for them it still struggled regularly to keep up.
Yes, most people have a computer in their homes. Yes, in many cases they could spend a few hundred bucks and achieve an acceptable level of performance for games. But even in these cases the cost over time is almost certainly higher than the cost paid for any particular home console (unless of course you purchased them when the prices were at their peak).
It should be noted however that the trend of needing new hardware is slowing considerably. Back when I first started playing PC games, a system could be utterly useless for playing games a year after you bought your machine. My first machine (a 486 dx, acquired in summer 1995), played doom, duke and even quake all right but simply could not run Quake 2 or Half-Life. My second PC, a 400 MHz machine ran games perfectly fine until it was replaced in late 2000. That machine lasted for four years, the one that followed more than five. This is a trend I'm certainly thankful for as I love PC games but have, more than once, resented the price of ownership.