Consoles are usually BETTER for getting people into gaming.

[ADeskofRichMahogany]

I agree that Consoles are better for getting people into gaming, but not really for the reasons highlighted in the original post. My reasoning is because a computer has a CRAPLOAD of buttons, and that can seem daunting to someone who has never really played video games.

With regards to "they will ALWAYS believe that the console version is the more fun one and will more likely get them to actually have fun and get into the game in question," I think that is debatable and depends entirely on the person. The big thing that I like about PC gaming is the greater freedom in setting up controls. For some people, control and responsiveness can make or break a gaming experience, and computer games offer more freedom in that respect than console games.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'd have to ..not disagree, but consider the vast number of people drawn into gaming thru such things as Farmville, Peggle, Bejeweled, etc.

So many people already use a PC, and the simple act of clicking and dragging a gem to form a row of three is the first step towards becoming a casual gamer for many.

I'd suggest that for full release games, the controller is generally more friendly however, and I certainly agree with a lot of what was said in Extra Credits this week.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

I've played on both, and had some good times on each. With a console you don't have to buy all sorts of extra parts to help your computer run smoothly or worry about installation related bugs and conflicts that prevent the game from working. And at the same time, I do like the improved graphics on the PC and the ability to download mods for games like Oblivion or Fallout.

It comes down to preference, I'd take the console for the easier setup, minimal system lag, and simple controls.

 

[Woodsey]

I totally agree with the OP that consoles provide not only the type of experiences that appeal to unexperienced gamers but that they also do it in a way that's less complex (and less threatening) than PCs do.

I also don't really agree with those saying PCs are easy to control games with. You may be familiar with using a mouse and keyboard for using MS Word or surfing the internet, but that's a world apart from dual wielding them in a game environment. The keyboard is also a fair bit more complex than a console controller. It has a lot more buttons and, unlike a controller, they aren't arranged in a logical (to gameplay) and easily identifiable fashion. Certainly you could simply plug a controller into your PC, and that would help, but A.) that's just another step to scare non-gamers away and B.) it's really more of a concession that the console option is the better one in this regard.

Of course consoles are better to introduce people into gaming. It's way, WAY, WAY more simpler to plug in a console, hit the open tray button, insert disc and close tray and connect the controller, rather than...I don't want to go through a PC process. And there's also no guarantee the game may run on your computer in the first place.

Yes, the troublesome PC process of clicking buy, downloading the game, clicking install and then playing the game.

Eh.. if you buy a console game, you know it's going to work out of the box on your machine and that you won't have to do anything special to get it to work. And unless we're talking PS3, you don't even have to install anything, just pop in the disc and go.

Also, a lot of people who aren't into gaming yet may not feel comfortable working with something like Steam. No, it's not complicated in the least, but it's another step you have to go through. Not to mention the fact that many non gamers may not like the idea of making online purchases, especially when what you're buying is something that doesn't exist in a physical sense.

OK, so buy it in a shop. Really, if you've used iTunes, you'd be fine. Steam has a much cleaner interface than the PS3 or its store, incidentally.

Also: contrary to popular belief, PC games don't have this amazingly huge chance of crapping out on you. Likewise, consoles aren't impervious to it.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

on the contrary, from what i've seen, putting a PC game into their hands causes them to get headaches or just give up after a few seconds because those games are REALLY meant for people with perfect timing and great reflexes.

Now, are we talking about the medium (consoles/PC) or the games? Not every PC game requires fast reflexes and not every console game is casual. These days it's quite the opposite actually. Those two games I mentioned are far simpler than e.g. Call of Duty, and it goes double if one plays COD with a gamepad.

i've actually gotten people to play Prototype and get into gaming because of that simply because it's a relatively easy game, the mechanics flow beautifully

Prototype is actually a good learning game because:

1) It's obviously fun. You don't teach get to play games by showing them, I dunno, Civilization.

2) It's got an excellent learning curve. It's actually also a good game to teach/learn how to use the gamepad. You begin with just one button or so and continue from there.

3) You almost can't die in the game, so you don't get frustrated.

4) You get to blow shit up. That usually gets people interested.

However, even Prototype has merits which don't make it ideal for introduction to games:

1) It's brutal. Not everyone likes this kind of thing.

2) Sensual overload. Too much going on on the screen, too much noise, too many options at once. Someone who haven't played games yet may get confused and put off. I showed Prototype to my gf (who can hold her own in PC multiplayer games) and she got a headache from all the noise and stuff.

3) While the combat is easy and flows well, the movement is pretty awkward even for an experienced gamer, much more for a newcomer. Also, sensual overload again: running or gliding in 100 mph between the skyscrapers can make one dizzy. Compare to, say, Prince of Persia 2008, which is much easier to control.

The above point also quite illustrate what a 'learning' game should have. Still, the controller remains the most negative variable in the learning process. I still think it's better to start with the mouse and keyboard, i.e. stuff the person is already familiar with.

All very good points. Besides, i was pointing out things from anecdotal evidence, so it's not like i'm going to defend it as word of god or anything. Another good game might be Crackdown, simply because it's got all those explosions and cartoony/friendly appeal without it being too complex. plus, if you introduce them with the Keys to the city or toybox mode it makes things even better.

Yeah, prototype has won a lot of people over and alienated a few people as well. those it wins are usually girls who are tired of playing things that people assume are "made for them" and it alienates people who think that i would get frustrated with them for "doing it wrong" (which i never do)

I agree that Consoles are better for getting people into gaming, but not really for the reasons highlighted in the original post. My reasoning is because a computer has a CRAPLOAD of buttons, and that can seem daunting to someone who has never really played video games.

With regards to "they will ALWAYS believe that the console version is the more fun one and will more likely get them to actually have fun and get into the game in question," I think that is debatable and depends entirely on the person. The big thing that I like about PC gaming is the greater freedom in setting up controls. For some people, control and responsiveness can make or break a gaming experience, and computer games offer more freedom in that respect than console games.

newcomers won't be aware or even be daunted by the "there's more freedom" point.

they'll believe that it's only there for people who know computers inside and out and that the point is moot to them due to the fact that they barely know how to not get a virus on their computer, much less mod their games on it.

 

[veloper]

First time someone on the staff seperates casual gamers from gamers. We're getting somewhere.

And yeah, those charts prolly include everyone's who only played minesweeper or patience for a bit on their work computer, under the casual gaming label.

PC still looking good on the core gaming though. It's like I always said: count the digital downloads like Steam too. Doubles the sales figures.
That's more than half of all the console sales combined. And then on topp of that you have MMOs, webbrowser games and facebook games.

I'm not really trying to weigh in on casual versus hardcore... I just think it's not useful to have a chart listing people that have spent money on games. That's like me buying a ticket to the Super Bowl and claiming to be a football player as a result. I just hate misleading statistics. Pet peeve

Hmmm. It says 145,000,000 "active gamers". Does it mean that 47% is only 47% of those active gamers, spending money on games?
With the dominance of web browser games and other free casual games and also many free MMOs out there, it's not impossible.

 

[Ruedyn]

Me and most of my gamer friends started with the gameboy colour. I like to play pc for big RPGs (for mods), console for shooters, and handheld for loading screens.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Hmmm. It says 145,000,000 "active gamers". Does it mean that 47% is only 47% of those active gamers, spending money on games?
With the dominance of web browser games and other free casual games and also many free MMOs out there, it's not impossible.

It looked (to me) like it was claiming that 47% of Americans were gamers.

 

[wilson_ty]

I have introduced several people to PC gaming, and they loved it. One of my friends loved Garry's Mod, and my brother is switching from X360 to PC because he loves that you can get free mods for games like Fallout 3. This is like getting a toy helicopter in a way: If you get one that's simply easier to control, that's all you'll have. An easy to control helicopter. But if you get one with a gyroscope, it will definitely be harder to learn to fly, but it will be much, much more advanced when you get the hang of it.
You simply can't get games like STALKER on the consoles (yet they're making STALKER 2 on PC and consoles, which I wish they wouldn't have decided on).
ArmA may be a better example. And before you swamp me on comments about how you think ArmA isn't fun (I wouldn't play it over something like Battlefield unless I had a group of friends ready and serious about playing, which will happen occasionally), hear me out. ArmA has so many controls, which will inevitably pull some out of the experience. But functions like leaning around corners would have to be dedicated to a button like L1 or R1 on a controller, while a keyboard has so many more controls. Going from that, a controller is, and never will be, close to a mouse in terms of controllability. RTS games are few and far between on the consoles, and it's usually easier on a PC (I've tried Halo Wars once, and I got through a few levels, but I got tired of it and took it back to the place I rented it at). You can get mods on the PC, much more than creative levels of LBP at that. Try to find a 360 mod for Fallout 3 that lets you ride on a motorcycle with two chainguns or flamethrowers on the side that you can shoot while riding. Last, but definitely not least is the admin abilities on PC. Granted, I'm mostly taking it from Source games on this one, but you get the point.
But I see what you're saying, if the average person doesn't want to spend more than $250 on being a gamer, or thinks that PC gaming is "too complex" (I'm looking at you, Mac users), then yeah, they should get a console and not join me in a game of TTT or StarCraft 2's Mafia gamemode.

EDIT: Also, is my avatar moving? If it is, I can't see it, and I uploaded a .gif file. After it wasn't moving, I gave it a direct URL to where I found it, and I still can't see it moving.

 

[StriderShinryu]

OK, so buy it in a shop. Really, if you've used iTunes, you'd be fine. Steam has a much cleaner interface than the PS3 or its store, incidentally.

Also: contrary to popular belief, PC games don't have this amazingly huge chance of crapping out on you. Likewise, consoles aren't impervious to it.

Sure console games aren't always going to work but let's be realistic about the odds of that. You'll see a console game not work, what, maybe 1% of the time? On the PC even if we're generous and say that a standard PC game will not work without extra work on a standard non gamers PC maybe a low ball of 5% of the time, that's still a huge difference. Remember, to a non gamer any extra work, or even the threat of it, has the potential to be a huge turn off.

Also, maybe it's different where you live, but where I live (Canada) you don't really find PC games prominently displayed in stores. You walk into even a dedicated game store and, while faced with a world of choices for any console or handheld, the PC section is tiny and either only has the biggest/newest titles or has the good stuff mixed in with shovelware I wouldn't force on my worst enemy. Going into a store here and looking for a PC game is almost an advertisement to not buy a PC game at all.

 

[Woodsey]

OK, so buy it in a shop. Really, if you've used iTunes, you'd be fine. Steam has a much cleaner interface than the PS3 or its store, incidentally.

Also: contrary to popular belief, PC games don't have this amazingly huge chance of crapping out on you. Likewise, consoles aren't impervious to it.

Sure console games aren't always going to work but let's be realistic about the odds of that. You'll see a console game not work, what, maybe 1% of the time? On the PC even if we're generous and say that a standard PC game will not work without extra work on a standard non gamers PC maybe a low ball of 5% of the time, that's still a huge difference. Remember, to a non gamer any extra work, or even the threat of it, has the potential to be a huge turn off.

Also, maybe it's different where you live, but where I live (Canada) you don't really find PC games prominently displayed in stores. You walk into even a dedicated game store and, while faced with a world of choices for any console or handheld, the PC section is tiny and either only has the biggest/newest titles or has the good stuff mixed in with shovelware I wouldn't force on my worst enemy. Going into a store here and looking for a PC game is almost an advertisement to not buy a PC game at all.

Well they're not much better here, although they do sell major releases still - but then you seemed to be working from the view of people who are completely computer illiterate. If people cope with Amazon (the messiest fucking website I've ever laid eyes on), they would cope with Steam. Of course, you could order your game off of Amazon as well. And I seem to remember a certain console at one point not too long ago having an estimated 30-50% complete hardware failure rate.

 

[StriderShinryu]

OK, so buy it in a shop. Really, if you've used iTunes, you'd be fine. Steam has a much cleaner interface than the PS3 or its store, incidentally.

Also: contrary to popular belief, PC games don't have this amazingly huge chance of crapping out on you. Likewise, consoles aren't impervious to it.

Sure console games aren't always going to work but let's be realistic about the odds of that. You'll see a console game not work, what, maybe 1% of the time? On the PC even if we're generous and say that a standard PC game will not work without extra work on a standard non gamers PC maybe a low ball of 5% of the time, that's still a huge difference. Remember, to a non gamer any extra work, or even the threat of it, has the potential to be a huge turn off.

Also, maybe it's different where you live, but where I live (Canada) you don't really find PC games prominently displayed in stores. You walk into even a dedicated game store and, while faced with a world of choices for any console or handheld, the PC section is tiny and either only has the biggest/newest titles or has the good stuff mixed in with shovelware I wouldn't force on my worst enemy. Going into a store here and looking for a PC game is almost an advertisement to not buy a PC game at all.

Well they're not much better here, although they do sell major releases still - but then you seemed to be working from the view of people who are completely computer illiterate. If people cope with Amazon (the messiest fucking website I've ever laid eyes on), they would cope with Steam. Of course, you could order your game off of Amazon as well. And I seem to remember a certain console at one point not too long ago having an estimated 30-50%
complete hardware failure rate.

Not computer illiterate, but not likely familiar with doing anything with them other than hitting Facebook or typing up an essay. Your average PC user who maybe has played Solitaire or even Farmville, but hasn't really considered that geeky expanse of GAMING (rawr!). Certainly, to them buying a music track on iTunes for $1 is probably not a big deal but paying $50 for a game they don't actually get a physical copy of and that may not even be able to play is a stretch. It's also a lot easier to mentally navigate something like Steam knowing what you know about games. Think about navigating iTunes if it didn't allow song previews (assuming it does.. I don't use iTunes *shrug*) and you had no idea what the difference was between Rock and Classical. Walking into a game store with a ton of console games each with it's own pretty box and a staff member standing by to "help" opens up the experience a huge amount, as does having more available rental options. This isn't saying PC games can't be great and can't be great intros to gaming. It also, for the most part, it's not even really a fault of PC games or their developers. It's about the experience and environment almost more than it is about the actual games.

As for the 50% failure rate of 360s. Of course that's a somewhat valid point, but that isn't the case any longer and it had nothing to do with the games themselves not working out of the box.

 

[VincentX3]

Technologically PC will always be better than consoles. Theirs no discussion or buts to it.
Now people preferring console gaming than PC is just opinions and liking.

That's why all Console VS PC flame-wars are just kids being idiots kids.

 

[Artina89]

My first gaming experience was courtesy of the SNES. 19 years later I am equally comfortable playing the PC as well as game consoles. On the whole, games consoles tend to be cheaper, and the controller layout for a lot of people seems to be easier to grasp than the mouse/keyboard layout. That, and consoles do get advertised a hell of a lot more than gaming PC's, at least in my experience so I find it hardly surprising that a lot more people are more familiar with console gaming. Of course, feel free to disagree with me, but what I have written comes from the people I have known and spoken to about gaming related topics.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Im sorry I did not know there was an argument on this issue. Consoles are simpler. So why wouldn't they be more accessiable.

Not entirely sure what your point of debate is? :|

 

[DustyDrB]

OK, so buy it in a shop. Really, if you've used iTunes, you'd be fine. Steam has a much cleaner interface than the PS3 or its store, incidentally.

Also: contrary to popular belief, PC games don't have this amazingly huge chance of crapping out on you. Likewise, consoles aren't impervious to it.

Sure console games aren't always going to work but let's be realistic about the odds of that. You'll see a console game not work, what, maybe 1% of the time? On the PC even if we're generous and say that a standard PC game will not work without extra work on a standard non gamers PC maybe a low ball of 5% of the time, that's still a huge difference. Remember, to a non gamer any extra work, or even the threat of it, has the potential to be a huge turn off.

Also, maybe it's different where you live, but where I live (Canada) you don't really find PC games prominently displayed in stores. You walk into even a dedicated game store and, while faced with a world of choices for any console or handheld, the PC section is tiny and either only has the biggest/newest titles or has the good stuff mixed in with shovelware I wouldn't force on my worst enemy. Going into a store here and looking for a PC game is almost an advertisement to not buy a PC game at all.

Well they're not much better here, although they do sell major releases still - but then you seemed to be working from the view of people who are completely computer illiterate. If people cope with Amazon (the messiest fucking website I've ever laid eyes on), they would cope with Steam. Of course, you could order your game off of Amazon as well. And I seem to remember a certain console at one point not too long ago having an estimated 30-50%
complete hardware failure rate.

Not computer illiterate, but not likely familiar with doing anything with them other than hitting Facebook or typing up an essay. Your average PC user who maybe has played Solitaire or even Farmville, but hasn't really considered that geeky expanse of GAMING (rawr!). Certainly, to them buying a music track on iTunes for $1 is probably not a big deal but paying $50 for a game they don't actually get a physical copy of and that may not even be able to play is a stretch. It's also a lot easier to mentally navigate something like Steam knowing what you know about games. Think about navigating iTunes if it didn't allow song previews (assuming it does.. I don't use iTunes *shrug*) and you had no idea what the difference was between Rock and Classical. Walking into a game store with a ton of console games each with it's own pretty box and a staff member standing by to "help" opens up the experience a huge amount, as does having more available rental options. This isn't saying PC games can't be great and can't be great intros to gaming. It also, for the most part, it's not even really a fault of PC games or their developers. It's about the experience and environment almost more than it is about the actual games.

As for the 50% failure rate of 360s. Of course that's a somewhat valid point, but that isn't the case any longer and it had nothing to do with the games themselves not working out of the box.

I'm in a way the kind of person you're talking about. I can do all the common tasks on a computer, but I get intimidated once things get technical. I've a few problems getting games to work on a computer (and not because of system requirement issues). It took me nearly a month to finally get one game to work. I can work a computer, but I do not understand them. I think a lot of PC gamers have been so into their platform of choice for so long that they can't relate to the fact that many of us don't really understand computers beyond surface-level tasks.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Im sorry I did not know there was an argument on this issue. Consoles are simpler. So why wouldn't they be more accessiable.

Not entirely sure what your point of debate is? :|

not trying to put forth a debate, i am trying to put forth a theory

unfortunately elitists and idiots will try and take this as a "consoles vs. PCs" thread, but what are you gonna do, eh? :/

OK, so buy it in a shop. Really, if you've used iTunes, you'd be fine. Steam has a much cleaner interface than the PS3 or its store, incidentally.

Also: contrary to popular belief, PC games don't have this amazingly huge chance of crapping out on you. Likewise, consoles aren't impervious to it.

Sure console games aren't always going to work but let's be realistic about the odds of that. You'll see a console game not work, what, maybe 1% of the time? On the PC even if we're generous and say that a standard PC game will not work without extra work on a standard non gamers PC maybe a low ball of 5% of the time, that's still a huge difference. Remember, to a non gamer any extra work, or even the threat of it, has the potential to be a huge turn off.

Also, maybe it's different where you live, but where I live (Canada) you don't really find PC games prominently displayed in stores. You walk into even a dedicated game store and, while faced with a world of choices for any console or handheld, the PC section is tiny and either only has the biggest/newest titles or has the good stuff mixed in with shovelware I wouldn't force on my worst enemy. Going into a store here and looking for a PC game is almost an advertisement to not buy a PC game at all.

Well they're not much better here, although they do sell major releases still - but then you seemed to be working from the view of people who are completely computer illiterate. If people cope with Amazon (the messiest fucking website I've ever laid eyes on), they would cope with Steam. Of course, you could order your game off of Amazon as well. And I seem to remember a certain console at one point not too long ago having an estimated 30-50%
complete hardware failure rate.

Not computer illiterate, but not likely familiar with doing anything with them other than hitting Facebook or typing up an essay. Your average PC user who maybe has played Solitaire or even Farmville, but hasn't really considered that geeky expanse of GAMING (rawr!). Certainly, to them buying a music track on iTunes for $1 is probably not a big deal but paying $50 for a game they don't actually get a physical copy of and that may not even be able to play is a stretch. It's also a lot easier to mentally navigate something like Steam knowing what you know about games. Think about navigating iTunes if it didn't allow song previews (assuming it does.. I don't use iTunes *shrug*) and you had no idea what the difference was between Rock and Classical. Walking into a game store with a ton of console games each with it's own pretty box and a staff member standing by to "help" opens up the experience a huge amount, as does having more available rental options. This isn't saying PC games can't be great and can't be great intros to gaming. It also, for the most part, it's not even really a fault of PC games or their developers. It's about the experience and environment almost more than it is about the actual games.

As for the 50% failure rate of 360s. Of course that's a somewhat valid point, but that isn't the case any longer and it had nothing to do with the games themselves not working out of the box.

I'm in a way the kind of person you're talking about. I can do all the common tasks on a computer, but I get intimidated once things get technical. I've a few problems getting games to work on a computer (and not because of system requirement issues). It took me nearly a month to finally get one game to work. I can work a computer, but I do not understand them. I think a lot of PC gamers have been so into their platform of choice for so long that they can't relate to the fact that many of us don't really understand computers beyond surface-level tasks.

i completely agree, some people are just so used to what they're doing as a second nature that they forget how daunting it is to a newcomer or onlooker. it doesn't help that when the onlooker tries to point out how complicated it is for them the community of those who do it tell them "GTFO! YOU'RE RETARDED! IT'S EASY!" or other variations of the phrase

 

[veloper]

Hmmm. It says 145,000,000 "active gamers". Does it mean that 47% is only 47% of those active gamers, spending money on games?
With the dominance of web browser games and other free casual games and also many free MMOs out there, it's not impossible.

It looked (to me) like it was claiming that 47% of Americans were gamers.

145/308 * 100% = 47%. I'm pretty sure they're calling everyone who's played a game of tetris or minesweeper a "gamer" on that piece.
It's the 47% "spends money" on games bit that puzzles me. They also limited their study between ages 10 and 65. 10-year-olds don't buy games.
Maybe the meant 0.47 * 0.47 buys games.