A Debate on PC vs Console

[Kolby Jack]

For me the barrier to gaming exclusively on PC has always been cohesiveness. Maybe my brain is stupid when it comes to PCs; hey, we all have our things, but I find with a console I can always figure out what the best stuff is, what to pass on, and how to find it with relative ease. I have a few games on PC, mostly MMOs, but I don't find the same ease of use with PC gaming services, and frankly I'll remain a mostly console gamer until that glorious day when the best of both options is combined onto one amazing machine that also makes fresh muffins. If PC gaming is the "clearly" superior option, I think consoles would not be quite as successful an industry as it has become. Obviously consoles offer something to millions of people that PCs can't. But I am certainly willing to admit that there are plenty of games that are just better on PC, typically MMOs and RTSs.

 

[arinor]

To me the interesting thing about the new consoles is that both use AMD APU (Accelerated Processor Unit) technology to increase performance and decrease power consumption. Basically, CPU and GPU are integrated and use the same memory to communicate more efficiently. Apparently this technology has been around for some time, but I've only heard about it now.
This sounds like the future, but the desktop APUs available now are all some budget variants not fit for really demanding games.
What I would like is a real gaming APU PC.

I also thought about getting PS4. If it could play PS3 games, I would strongly consider buying it. I wanted to play The Last of Us along with a few other exclusives for quite some time. But alas, it can't.
What I don't like about crossing over to consoles, is their imprecise controls. Besides if I upgrade PC I get extra power for all tasks not just for games.

 

[DefunctTheory]

To me the interesting thing about the new consoles is that both use AMD APU (Accelerated Processor Unit) technology to increase performance and decrease power consumption. Basically, CPU and GPU are integrated and use the same memory to communicate more efficiently. Apparently this technology has been around for some time, but I've only heard about it now.
This sounds like the future, but the desktop APUs available now are all some budget variants not fit for really demanding games.
What I would like is a real gaming APU PC.

I also thought about getting PS4. If it could play PS3 games, I would strongly consider buying it. I wanted to play The Last of Us along with a few other exclusives for quite some time. But alas, it can't.
What I don't like about crossing over to consoles, is their imprecise controls. Besides if I upgrade PC I get extra power for all tasks not just for games.

APU's have one major problem - heat.

It's virtually impossible to jam a high end CPU and a top tier video card into one package without melting a hole in the floor. Any potential gains in memory bandwidth or efficiency are outweighed by the fact that you simply can;t put enough horsepower in there.

As such, APUs really only work when in a form factor that strives for low heat over performance - Laptops and gaming consoles that can't afford to sound like jet turbines.

 

[arinor]

APU's have one major problem - heat.

It's virtually impossible to jam a high end CPU and a top tier video card into one package without melting a hole in the floor. Any potential gains in memory bandwidth or efficiency are outweighed by the fact that you simply can;t put enough horsepower in there.

As such, APUs really only work when in a form factor that strives for low heat over performance - Laptops and gaming consoles that can't afford to sound like jet turbines.

Well I'd actually like an efficient low power and low heat solution (and inexpensive too). I'd be content with the performance level of next-gen consoles. But current desktop APUs don't have such performance. According to this article [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2013/08/13/can-amds-newest-apu-play-your-favorite-games-without-a-dedicated-graphics-card-part-1/] the top of the line APU can play Metro Last Light only on low settings.

And you are right of course. It didn't occur to me until now that these APUs actually have the form factor of a CPU (like I said I only just learned about this new tech). Clearly it would be impossible to fit all the power into such a small space. I guess console APUs can have much higher performance because they don't have the limitations of traditional PC composition.
And if AMD is to go forward with this tech, maybe the whole PC architecture needs to change.
They actually have formed HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) [http://developer.amd.com/resources/heterogeneous-computing/what-is-heterogeneous-system-architecture-hsa/] foundation for taking the tech to the industry along with Samsung, Qualcomm and others.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I like the PC and think its good enough for most games with a gamepad its good enough for all. But with exclusivity you are SOL unless you get them all. This is why I love emulation you get it all on one piece of hardware and have extras like higher resolution and graphics filters not to mention my favorite thing SAVE STATES!

 

[Tiger King]

I don't see it as PC v console, I see it as I don't have a grand to buy a good gaming PC
The simplicity of a console is really nice, just plug in and play.
PCs have better graphics, ok but graphics are no longer a selling point for me personally. They DO have a better variety of games though, that's probably another reason why I don't game on a PC, I would never leave the house again from playing all those awsome games!!!

So, these are the points/opinions that I would like to put forward:
It's a financial thing
Scared of becoming a hermit, this one could be interchanged with 'PC gaming looks a bit serious to the casual gamer'

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't see it as PC v console, I see it as I don't have a grand to buy a good gaming PC

If you have 500 dollars to spend on a next-gen console, you have the money to buy a gaming PC that will get the job done.

You just said you don't care about graphics, which takes a lot of the cost and trouble out of it. Running recent games on medium on my ghetto card still gives me shinier visuals than my XBox or PS3.

And honestly, if your biggest problem is "too many games," you're in a pretty good place.

But cost really shouldn't be a factor. Maybe at the start of the last gen this was an argument (though PS3s were what, 800 dollars?), but not now.

 

[Something Amyss]

i don't get the whole "debate" tbh.

i have no money (comparatively) 4 PCs and 9 consoles (i think...i would have to go count them).

i loan consoles to people ffs...

i'm always surprised to see how easily these console only gamers post from thier consoles in what i assume is the third world

Compared to who and what, if I might ask?

 

[Sack of Cheese]

It's all the matter of exclusivity. Some people prefer what consoles have to offer, some people prefer PC games. Consoles also last longer, Xbox came out in 2005 and can still play new games whereas a PC built in 2005 may not, maybe if you turn it down to low graphic?

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I play both and both have their ups and downs. But in the end I am still a console guy. Started with a console and I'll end with one. I can't miss out on all of the titles both platforms offer. Having both is the true master race. Never missing a single game.

I find this relevant to your position.

 

[Something Amyss]

Compared to who and what, if I might ask?

compared to someone who works for a living.

Is there a particular reason for your evasion?

 

[Cabisco]

My personal take:

Consoles will always be prefered for me because of the following simple reasons:

1. My friends all have consoles and 90% of my online time I play with them
2. Games are built to the console, with PCs if you want to keep pretty games you've got to keep upgrading. With a console I'll never have to gut it and add new things
3. Once I put a disk into the console I might be asked to click 'download now'. On a PC I could end up spending hours in menus making sure bloody game will even run.

Really the reason many of us have consoles is because they are simply easier to work with. Yes PCs are better, but I can't be arsed with the extra hassle that can bring just to see if the game I've just got will even run on the bastard thing.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I thought the mods frowned on "Vs" threads.
If the purpose of the topic isn't confirmation or rejection, then what is there to discuss that hasn't been beaten to death?

Well...I'll try.

-Consoles are convenient, but come with more restrictions and static hardware.
-PCs are more pricy for hardware, but with far more flexibility and potential.

If consoles weren't cheap and convenient, not nearly as many people would buy them.

Spoiler: My Random Tangent

Consoles used to offer the benefit of refinement when they neared the end of their life cycles.
It's like seeing the difference between a console's launch titles and those made in its last years.

With static hardware, the only way to make something better than its predecessor is to try harder and get creative rather than just trying to resell the same goddamn thing with better graphical fidelity.

Super Mario RPG is a marvelous game that launched in the twilight years of the SNES.

But I'm pretty sure that practice is dying, or dead as of the end of the 360/PS3/Wii cycle.
Now, they're just blinging shit up because AAA is terrified of creating anything outside of a tiny set of popular genres.

 

[Tiger King]

I don't see it as PC v console, I see it as I don't have a grand to buy a good gaming PC

If you have 500 dollars to spend on a next-gen console, you have the money to buy a gaming PC that will get the job done.

You just said you don't care about graphics, which takes a lot of the cost and trouble out of it. Running recent games on medium on my ghetto card still gives me shinier visuals than my XBox or PS3.

And honestly, if your biggest problem is "too many games," you're in a pretty good place.

But cost really shouldn't be a factor. Maybe at the start of the last gen this was an argument (though PS3s were what, 800 dollars?), but not now.

Really? You can pc game with a bog standard computer ?
I thought you would need something flashy like the ones on the Alienware website!
I tried running black and white on my pc and it was just too slow

On the games....
Man do I envy pc gamers! Stuff like arma and all the online ones like eve look like so much fun.
Do you have to use a mouse and keyboard all the time though?
Because that means sitting up fairly straight at a desk as opposed to slouching in my fave easy chair with a controller.

 

[TehCookie]

i don't get the whole "debate" tbh.

i have no money (comparatively) 4 PCs and 9 consoles (i think...i would have to go count them).

i loan consoles to people ffs...

i'm always surprised to see how easily these console only gamers post from thier consoles in what i assume is the third world

Posting this from my PS3 because I can. However my 15 year old laptop or phone are fine for websurfing and can't play games.

OT: I'm simple when it comes to console wars, the PS3 has the best games so it's my favorite. There is no best platform for everyone.

 

[Something Amyss]

evasion ? evasion from what ?

A useful answer.

Even your new, edited answer isn't really all that telling.

Is this going to be one of those things where every time I quote you you go back and edit yourself to change an answer? Because I honestly can't be bothered to continue, if it is.

Really? You can pc game with a bog standard computer ?

Bog-standard? You might need a video card. My 400 dollar PC from 2010 was running a good chunk of games on integrated graphics and didn't need much of a graphical upgrade in order to run the rest. There will probably be a few games I can't run, but they're outliers. Which brings me to the Black and White comparison. I honestly hope that was back in 2001, because things have progressed a little since then. But yes, Black and White used to give PCs fits.

However, the environment has changed. Hardware isn't standard, but is far from the crap shoot it once was. Consoles actually played a large part in that. Now, with a low-end or moderate video card you will NOT be playing benchmark games on ultra, but you yourself said graphics don't matter, so that shouldn't be a problem.

I mean, you can look on the web or Youtube for cheap gamin PC builds. If you can't do it yourself, assembly is relatively cheap.

Laptops are more difficult, granted.

Worst case scenario for me is I have to upgrade my processor, which is already five years old, or my video card. but I am running games from this year on a five year old processor with a budget card, and getting decent visuals. On a dated card I'm pretty sure wasn't even mid-range when new.

If I had a couple grand to spare, I might do more, but maybe not.

Look, I can see a bunch of reasons to prefer consoles. If not for widespread 360 controller support, I'd be lining up for a new console with everyone else. Still, I've got two wired controllers plugged into my PC with an HDMI out running to my TV, and I couldn't be happier to ruin the image of the glorious PC gamer master race with my filthy casual tendencies. There's convenience (especially for the techphobic crowd), there's exclusives, there's the knowledge that the games will work out of the box--unless they don't, because there have been some crap console releases.

Just don't let cost be one because of boutique prices or PC gamers who think that if you can't run the latest games on ultra you might as well kill yourself, because both are crap.