Are PCs still really less reliable than consoles?

[cuddly_tomato]

The question really is: We all take for granted in a generic PC vs. console debate that PCs are less reliable and more difficult to get up and play a game. Can PC enthusiasts really simply concede this point anymore?

Agreed.

*snip*

*Snort* You know what your posting of that forum screenshot means? That fallout 3 for pc is bugged to hell. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the pc as a platform, and everything to do with the quality of coding done for the game.

Compare it to the console tech issues.

Go take a look.

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=35

Ten times more issues than either platform. I really don't see why PC users should expect to recieve a product of lower reliability than a console user. Yes, I know PC configurations vary tremendously, but still... they are supposed to be a business. We should demand quality, not be content with excuses.

 

[almo]

I've never had driver conflicts on a console.
I've never had OS incompatibility problems on a console.
I've never had hardware incompatibility on a console.

I have had all these problems and more on PCs, and a few problems of this type on Macs.

 

[laikenf]

Come on fellas, you guys know what this thread is about. It's certainly not about PC's being more powerful than consoles (a point proven way beyond ANY doubt, not only on the escapist, but in dozens of other sites); and it's obviously not about specs. and the cost of a decent PC (all PC gamers here have had their chance to show us the true advantages of PC's over consoles); what I think this thread is about is the fact that to play a console game made for the X360 (for example) all you need is to do is pop in the game and just play. This will be the case for ALL the X360 titles you buy: they will run (If the PC version plays and looks better fine, but it's not the point here) and that's pretty much it, again, with ALL games released for the 360. What's refered to as reliability is, for example, purchasing a PC game but immediately looking at the back cover to see the min. req. before you pay, just to make sure you can run it; it also refers to twitching and optimizing the settings to get a smooth running game (I don't think this is bad, but it is something to DO or to KEEP IN MIND before playing you're game); If the game requires it (and if you really want to play it) you'll be sometimes forced to upgrade you're system (again, I don't consider this evil, but you have to DO IT). I absolutely agree that if you know you're rig you will probably won't ever have to worry about it crashing in the middle of a boss fight (exept, of course, if the game is bugged) but do you have to know you're console to keep that from happening? That is why some people prefer a console to a gaming PC, and that's what is bieng considered as reliability here on this thread; and yes, a lot of people exaggerate how much computer knowledge you need to game on PC's (you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to know you're computer) but you have to meet requirements and most of the time do stuff (and do them right) to make the most out of you're PC gaming experience; all of those things are suppresed on a console, meaning that a game you buy for you're 360 (example) will run an the Core System, the Elite, the Pro, the arcade... you get the point.

 

[Gormers1]

I think they still are less reliable. There is always something with pcs I say. Yeah I know I must be doing everything wrong but no Im not doing anything wrong. How the hell could I know that dreamfall didnt support my fairly new graphics card? I have a lot of examples that made me move to the consoles, but Im not gonna say them now (if you reply I will though). PCs are so random. You can get an bluescreen while playing a game but when you try the game again the problem is gone to never appear again.

Anyway, pcs may have become more stable over the years, but the games for them havent. I mean how often dont we hear about a buggy game with lousy drm protection tied to it. GTA 4 anyone? Lost of developers shits all over the pc gamers head these days.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

PC reliability isn't an issue.

I think I still have to disagree. Apparently, those who are good with PCs never get blue screens, never experience trouble installing, never find that their mouse or speakers are not functioning with the game, never have any of a million daily annoyances, like the STEAM Store page not loading after an update, and never get complete meltdowns. They must never get maintenance pop-ups which minimize their game, causing a blue screen upon reentry. I, on the other hand, get those things constantly. People complain about crashes and bugs all the time. Maybe PC reliability isn't an issue for you, but it is definitely an issue.

The Kalashnikov assault rifle is famous for reliability because its a robust machine that can endure abuse, not a fidgety contraption that requires maintenance and expertise. For me, its not even debatable which is more reliable: consoles by a mile.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The question really is: We all take for granted in a generic PC vs. console debate that PCs are less reliable and more difficult to get up and play a game. Can PC enthusiasts really simply concede this point anymore?

Agreed.

*snip*

*Snort* You know what your posting of that forum screenshot means? That fallout 3 for pc is bugged to hell. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the pc as a platform, and everything to do with the quality of coding done for the game.

Compare it to the console tech issues.

Go take a look.

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=35

Ten times more issues than either platform. I really don't see why PC users should expect to recieve a product of lower reliability than a console user. Yes, I know PC configurations vary tremendously, but still... they are supposed to be a business. We should demand quality, not be content with excuses.

How does that have anything to do with PC reliability? At best it'd be saying that Fallout 3 is bugged up the ass, and I happily trade a bug or two for better graphics, better mods, better controls, better UI, better online community that the PC version of games offer.

We have discussed this before and you still haven't got the gist of it and this tells me that:

A) you're a rather dumb person.

B) you're just nay saying to sound 'cool'.

C) you're stubborn.

D) you're a console fanboy that had a little trouble with his badly maintained PC and now condemns the entire platform from his personal experiences (this in philosophy is considered a induced generalization fallacy, which means you're wrong.)

I'll bet on D but you take you're pick .

And unlike Microsoft, Bethesda doesn't make excuses, they patch things. You can't release a product that is compatible with everything and has 0 bugs at all, it's nearly impossible and if you want to disprove me find me a program that doesn't have bugs. Or that crashes. Or that doesn't work on Ubuntu. Or that doesn't work on a Mac.
Even DirectX has its limitations.

I think you get the picture if not well too bad, just keep on dismissing arguments and committing atrocious fallacies that you'll get far on these forums. /sarcasm

Anyone see that? That was a glimpse of the species Homo Sapiens Fanbois Jackassis, or common fanboy. They are a subspiecies of humans (Homo Sapiens) that evolved early in the 21st century due to an interesting case of symbiotic evolution. Brands also evolved around this time, but some brands became weaker than others. Some humans attached themselves too these brands in some form of psychological capacity. Thus the brands could survive by the sheer bloody mindedness of their fanboys, would support them financially (and in other ways) no matter what they did, and in return the "brand" would give them some kind of identity to belong too.

We can identify this as a fanboy by the post he made. A previous post was made, pointing out the absolute fact that either one of the other platforms a game was released on apparently had TEN TIMES less tech support issues than this fanboys own brand. The post pointed the finger squarely at the developer of that game, not the platform it was on. This fanboy then started squawking loudly, beating his wings and using bold to aggressively defend his territory. It is interesting how fanboys will do this even if it is clear to the entire world that what they are saying is complete rubbish. In fact the weaker the position their brand is in, the more violently they will seek to defend it. It is also impossible for a fanboy to conciously accept that he may be wrong about anything. In this post for instance, you will see a number of options, from A-D. Option "E) Groovy Pants is incorrect", is not there because he will not, ever, even with a gun to his head, admit that a tech support ratio of 10-1 of PC vs console is simply unacceptable. Mention made that Fallout 3 sold very poorly on consoles compared to PCs, thus skewing those results even further in favour of the case that the PC version was considerably more bugged and unfinished than the console version will also be ignored. Not so much ignored, more like he won't see this part. Special receptors in the fanboy brain block out logic.

Unfortunately, the fanboy may be an endangered species as they do not have the ability to attract a mate of the opposite sex. It is possible that fanboys may be captured and placed in zoos for breeding (as happened with the Giant Panda).

 

[Doug]

I can honestly say my XBox has locked up as much as my PC. But I think my cooling for the XBox is too poorly ventilated.

 

[laikenf]

Console breaks and its frakked. PC breaks you just replace the part thats blown and you are up and running again.
PCs win. As for gaming dont you have to install games on your consoles nowadays? If I am going to install shit anyway I may as well go with PC so I can mod the crap outta it.

Some PS3 games have to be installed (not sure if all of them), X360 is optional, and the wii requires no installation. But I doubt that installation is what people complain about when PC reliabilty is concerned.

 

[spazzattack]

The difference between the PC and console in terms of reliability is that if you have a PC game, there can be room for error. If something doesn't work, a patch can be installed for free. A console however needs physical input, and if the disc doesn't work, then you wasted your money. This is why most games for consoles are more refined and polished to avoid crashes and bugs. It's not that a PC game can release a whole slew of bugs with no backlash, but it is much more forgiving. Fallout 3 is a good example: On the PC it is sometimes buggy or laggy, but I still play it a lot. However if I had the same amount of problems on a 360 version, I would have been pissed. So PC games are really only more unreliable when they first get released. After a month or two of real world testing, I'd wager that the PC version will be better.

 

[Ronwue]

It really depends on user, maintenance, parts, and so on. But even if consoles would be a bit more reliable, I still wouldn't want to loose the versatility of my PC for that stability. Aside from to-desktop, game crashes without a saved game, everything else is fixable and recoverable if you know how to back up properly.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

My PC isn't anything special, but it is reliable.

I squeezed an extra 300mhz out of my GFX card this morning because I am unsure how it will handle GTA IV. Not a single stability issue.

This is the thing. PC's can be overclocked, and upgraded bit by bit as need be. I'm only looking at a quad core now after ~5 years with duals because of my work load picking up. And as my last dual upgrade was an Intel e6600, I can get my hands on a cheap q6600 and solve it.

Consoles have the issue of being pushed too far. PC's can't really, as things can be turned down in various settings. Also, looking at the track records of every console out there currently, I think we can argue that consoles are less reliable than PC's.

 

[shatnershaman]

A console is a personal computer.

This depends on what your comparing though. If you have overclocked everything and didn't spring for some massive fans or expensive water cooling then your computer is fried. In generally I would say off-line PC is more reliable on-line consoles are.

 

[Fightgarr]

There is one reason why I like to game on a console as opposed to a PC. It has nothing to do with PCs being "hard to maintain" or me being computer illiterate (which sort of I am when it comes to anything more complicated than gaming). Its the fact that on a console, I can get a couple of my buddies over to my place, eat a bunch of crap, have a few beers, and enjoy playing a game together in each other's company, rather than sitting at our separate computers playing a game online.
If there was some kind of function on a computer where you could have a double mouse and keyboard and they started making split screen games for PC, then I would game on a PC. Of course, they seem to be under the impression, with new consoles, that all gamers lack friends or something, and are thus eliminating local multiplayer on titles that easily could support it.

 

[Jaythulhu]

We should demand quality, not be content with excuses.

Totally agree with you there, but the majority of the time, games that fail to work on a pc are due to poor coding of the game software, not because of the pc (like ubisoft and their terrible ports of assassin's creed and r6:vegas).

My 360 blew up, my pc hasn't failed me ever.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Well, I haven't gamed on my PC in awhile but I gaurantee you I don't have a single game other than solitaire that I can just boot up and play in 5 minutes. God knows how many drivers are outdated and how many patches I am behind on.

Last time I tried I spent 30 minutes and two beers just reloading and prepping the machine. More of a hassle than it's worth sometimes.