PC Gaming is Cool And All... But...

[The_Emperor]

they are both completely different platforms, the games that translate to both is just an argument between control schemes and I like both, I play A LOT of both and there really is no need to compare them.

I think pads are more ergonomic, keyboards have more buttons, mouse is more precise thumbsticks are better for tracking, cars and piloting.

I wouldnt like to play an MMO like WOW on a pad, you'd need a million buttons tacked on. Driving a car with WSAD sucks because there is no pressure sensitivity you just have to tap alot.

There is no argument and one who says one is better than the other is just a silly person I mean PCs can be upgraded, better graphs, games are cheaper, consoles have no DRM, Easier to use, Universal compatibility, work out the box.

you can argue the merits and failures of each but it comes down to preference, which is subjective so there has never been an argument it's people just telling other people why their preference is superior to the other persons preference which is ridiculous.

 

[kurokenshi]

Modern consoles (and even it appears, the Wii-U) are not capable of Hardware tesselation.

The Xbox 360 can do it just fine and plenty of ATI cards could also do it for years as well. Of course neither has really been used in games, but the capabilities have been around for a while. So wake me when it actually becomes a major part of most games, not just a technical curiosity used by only a tiny handful of games.

-unlicensed platform mean developers can release games without a fee, Minecraft collects 100% of revenue.

This is the one big advantage PCs have, no question.

-higher competition per system. GoG, Steam and now Origin compete on one PC while Xbox locks you into XBLA there is only detached competition with PSN

Meanwhile Steam games are locked to Steam, allowing them to do price fixing and kill the used game marked, leading to the console version of Orange Box for example actually being cheaper then the PC version.

Steam in general is also heavily overpriced, so is GoG and Origin. The only thing those services have going for them are their sales, their regular pricing just sucks, its most of the time cheaper to order stuff right from Amazon.

-Far more flexible controls with mouse + keyboard but also more importantly gamepad, or wheel, whatever appropriate

And half the time that stuff fails to work. For example with gamepads you basically have two kinds of games these days: The new ones, that require an Xbox360 gamepad and do not support older gamepads (due to lack of XInput driver) and the older ones that only support old gamepads properly, as the official Xbox360 DirectInput drivers are so shitty that they allow no configuration and merge the triggers into a single Z-axis, making them unusable for most games.

Now of course there are workarounds, custom drivers, XPadder and a whole lot of other hackery, but getting a usable configuration with non-standard hardware is often more effort then it is worth it, when it is possible at all (can't turn a mouse driven UI into one tuned for a gamepad).

Consoles are far less flexible, but they actually have a default configuration that is consistent across all games and just works without any need for tweaking.

-games 100% install makes them far easier to patch and follow major ongoing updates like TF2's continued evolution

100% install also means that it takes forever to get to actually play the game you want to play, also add in layered DRM for extra fun. Nothing better then having Steam games require GamesForWindows on top.

-Modding is a major creative force that has kept CS alive and strong for 12 year now,

And aside from CS players nobody cares. As nice as modding sounds in theory, the actual number of useful mods is rather slim and essentially getting smaller and smaller as games get more complex. Doing a level for Doom1 that was similar in quality to the original wasn't that difficult, doing one that competes with stuff seen in modern games, not so much.

Right now PC seems to be the only platform actually making progress, it's been 6 years since Xbox 360, graphics have moved on a LOOOONG way since then.

And yet all you get are shiny tech demos and no actual games. And that is where the crux is, you can proclaim all day that a modern $1000 PC is technically more powerful then a console, but the sad fact is that this $1000 PC essentially boils down to playing the exact same games as the $200 console. It might get more resolution and anti-aliasing, but not actually different games.

Tesselation has only been actually demonstrated in Games runnign via Direct X 11 that NO CONSOLE can support.

Examples of this:

-Crysis 2 on PC - with the latest graphics patch THAT I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN YOU!
-Dirt 3
-Metro 2033:

And I think you'll find its easier to get a gamepad to work on PC than to get a mouse to work on Xbox 360.

Steam games are locked to Steam but nothing stops me from buying games from Origin and using that service. One machine, multiple competing stores.

So I mainly buy during Steam sales... so what? I have amassed over 100 games for on average £3 each. The most overpriced game on Steam is STILL cheaper than buying a console game on the high street. Portal 2 is now only £20, last time I saw the game NEW, it was £29.99. Yeah, you can find bargains for console games online, but that is cherry picking you can do the same searching for Steam games on sale.

(Console version of Orange Box is so cheap because: it is a shit version of the game, no one even wants the used copies)

The mere presence of modders is so important as it holds developers to a high professional standard, they must beat the gifted amateurs.

Look at modern Warfare 3, now look at MW2. If it was possible to mod MW2 then it would have been modded to include such already for free, but they want to charge another $60 for it.

#1 a capable gamign PC does not cost $1000, more like $500
#2 a console costs way more than just $300, more like $500
#3 If it is better, then IT IS BETTER you cannot dismiss:
-DOUBLE the framerate
-3x the resolution
-Wonderful mouse aim
-Much higher texture/shader quality

All these add up to make a hughe difference. I play my PS3 and PC on the same computer monitor, and even great games like Uncharted 2 are made to look horrible by comparison with PC. Wonderful art design, pacing and presentation let down by a stretched 720p image, inadequate framerate and unwilling controls. You can see in the design where compromises had to be made.

Dude your awesome! Totally agree with what your saying.

 

[grumbel]

Tesselation has only been actually demonstrated in Games runnign via Direct X 11 that NO CONSOLE can support.

Yeah, and a lot of PC games don't use it either. As said, wake me when it becomes important part of gaming, not a minor technical gimmick.

And I think you'll find its easier to get a gamepad to work on PC than to get a mouse to work on Xbox 360.

That doesn't stop getting a gamepad to work on a lot of PC games being a major hassle. The advantage with consoles is that they have one standard control scheme that is well tested and works, PC's don't have that and its always kind of a mess, as either games don't have proper mouse and keyboard support or no proper gamepad support or even both.

Steam games are locked to Steam but nothing stops me from buying games from Origin and using that service. One machine, multiple competing stores.

And all of them locked and overpriced. Competition is nice, but when it comes to online sales its still far away from being hard enough to actual lead to lower prices.

The most overpriced game on Steam is STILL cheaper than buying a console game on the high street.

Assassins Creed Brotherhood on Steam: 50?
Assassins Creed Brotherhood on Amazon (PC, Xbox360, PS): 30?

And no, I am not saying that Steam is always more expensive than console games, but that Steam is almost always more expensive then Amazon. Online retailers should be a lot cheaper then having a box shipped to you, but they are not.

Look at modern Warfare 3, now look at MW2. If it was possible to mod MW2 then it would have been modded to include such already for free, but they want to charge another $60 for it.

Pipe dream. Also that just shows: Modding is on the way out, many modern games don't even allow it.

#1 a capable gamign PC does not cost $1000, more like $500

At $500 you don't get a capable gaming PC, you get an entry level PC that is able to play games. Very different thing. Do you expect that machine to max out Battlefield 3? Battlefield 4? Or whatever other games come around the years down the road.

#2 a console costs way more than just $300, more like $500

If you buy on launch day maybe, if you can wait a bit console prices quickly go down or you can get them bundled on x-mas with a bunch of games. I never payed more then 250? for a console.

#3 If it is better, then IT IS BETTER you cannot dismiss:
-DOUBLE the framerate
-3x the resolution
-Wonderful mouse aim
-Much higher texture/shader quality

Unimportant details. What matters is the underlying game and those are pretty much the same between console and PC.

All these add up to make a hughe difference.

To you maybe, the rest of the world doesn't care, which is why consoles are successful, while PCs are not (aside from FarmVille of course).

 

[Stalydan]

Ah the glorious PC Gaming Master Race.

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/140/2/2/PC_Gaming_Master_Race_by_Claidheam_Righ.jpg

Honestly I could care less about PC Gaming. IMO, it's much harder to play a game on a keyboard and mouse then it is on a controller. It's also feels a lot more tense (not the good kind) to stand up straight (unless your playing WoW) playing on the PC when you can just sit and relax and still be competitive on a console.

PC has an edge on graphical capability (if your rich enough to buy the hardware and make it), mods (could care less about USER content unless it's missing content mods that were cut from the orignal game at launch like KOTOR 2 or graphic patches, otherwise, every other mod is pretty useless.), and...well I'm not sure what else but someone who is a heavy pc gamer will probably comment on this post and say something else.

Otherwise, consoles are just a lot more user friendly and a lot more people have always played games on consoles then they did on PCs.

As for me, the only time I ever play games on my PC is for MMOs or games only to the PC like the recent Witcher 2. Everything else is all console and I like it that way a lot better.

I should easily dismiss your argument because you used "could care less" instead of "couldn't care less". There's a massive difference and I shall refer you to David Mitchell for that.

It's a shame you had to go through all that time to find a video about some British guy talking about how to use certain words when I did actually mean I could care less. I do care in the sense that I do play some PC games and that PC games affect the market almost as much as console games do. So in a way, I do care...but very little. I couldn't would imply I don't care at all.

TLR: you failed.

The fact you don't know who David Mitchell is shows you are American (it took me half a minute) and forgive me if I'm wrong but Americans tend to never use "could care less" when they actually could care less. The fact you said "could care less" actually makes me wonder why you used it anyway. Why did you have to indicate you actually cared? Why have I failed when you actually used the phrase twice (Once saying you "could care less" about PC game and then again about user generated content). The second time makes even less sense than the first time you used the phrase. Because that says you actually do care about some user mods.

TL;DR You're just covering your tracks because you needlessly used a phrase incorrectly. Own up to it.

 

[IkeGreil29]

I knew a thread like this would explode on the Escapist. That's why I avoided it for a while.
Truth of the matter is, each one has their good parts, and not any in particular is going to be entirely better. I agree that heavy strategy games are better on PC (you have multiple buttons you can configure however you like plus pausing is more natural in those games along with the fact that mouse response time is better than thumbstick. Read: why Halo Wars fails as an RTS (among other faults it has)) as well as shooters, due to their more reflex and high paced nature.
But the second I play Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Kirby, StarFox, etc. on something else than a console is the day videogames die for me.

 

[Treblaine]

I pay $35 a month. Also what world are you living in where the average cost of a gaming PC is $100. I am not going to get rid of my cell phone so the total price I pay is pointless. As for the 3/4 of the games I play read what I actually fucking wrote. 3/4 of the games that I buy are either ps3 exclusive or I purchased to play online with my friends on the ps3. Which is exactly what I fucking said before.

As for portability a backpack is not very hard to "lug" around especially when it is sitting in the backseat of your car.

Gaming is not a necessity, so no, computers nor consoles are a necessity. Yet I don't think you are going to be able to do spreadsheets, word processing, video editing, photoshopping, web design, video encoding, video broadcasting, game design, 3D modeling, power point presentations, databases, heavy statistical calculations, and many more on a console.

If you can do those without a computer and as efficiently, please let me know.

Ye really are a dense one now arnt you. I dont need to do spreadsheets, word processing, video editing, photoshopping, web design, video encoding, video broadcasting, game design, 3D modeling, power point presentations, databases, heavy statistical calculations since I dont do any of that hence I dont need a fucking pc.

snip

I think we may need to teach you the definition of the word necessity. Besides that the entire point of my post flew right over your head.

Is there some problem with your browser? Do you recognise that the " £ " symbol means Pound Sterling. The unit of Currency in the United Kingdom. Those prices are definitely accurate and the thing is computer components either side of the Atlantic have always tracked with the exchange rate, so £665 really would have gotten you $1200 worth of computer components.

As I said in another post is it impossible to say one is cheaper then the other. Bother of the price lists we give were 100% correct but due to different countries and even taking the exchange rate into consideration gave very different totals. The prices on everything very country by country. You state "-Play charge kit = £15" when I know I paid $10 for mine. That is the perfect example.

Consoles really do cost this much. Are you aware of how much you could get if you had not bought into the console scam? I play my PS3 and my PC both plugged into the same screen and it's quite startling going even from the best looking PS3 games to PC games with merely decent graphics, PC is so much better.

PC price-for-price outperforms consoles by an astonishing margin.

You CAN deny it. I'd just like to see you prove otherwise.

All I got from that was SHINY, SHINY, SHINEY. I am fully aware of what I could have got if I did not purchase a ps3. I got have got a xbox 360 or a useless PC.

Then there's of course ebay.

You can't do that with consoles, no matter how hard you may try.

No you cant but I can also go buy a ps3 or xbox slim used for under $150.

$35 per month is still $420 per YEAR! And I assume a 24 month contract so $840 before you have that monkey off you back. A lot of money spread over a long time is STILL a lot of money.

For your "PC beater" lets compare it with my PC;

-2.5 inch screen (integrated) vs 24 inch screen (fully adjustable)
-tiny keyboard vs full size keyboard at desk height
-minuscule pointing device vs Logitech MX518 high precision mouse
-crappy stock browser vs Chrome
-can't run games vs can run games
-can't even write a Word document vs can do everything from Word document to presentation, as expected of a professional adult... not just spam text messages all day
-Ridiculously underpowered vs 7 years ago my PC would have been categorised as a supercomputer

You are being ripped off. And you seem to love it.

I have a £150 iPod touch for pocket-computing and a £10 pay-as-you-go phone for texting. Save around £700 for essentially the same functionality.

Yet you claim to not need a PC... even for composing a letter? How do you write a CV or letter of application for a job? How do you write essays for studies? Have to ever made a spreadsheet for keeping track of expenses? Have you ever wanted to edit a photograph to crop out something, rename or remove red-eye?

PS: my comparison IS relevant because that is how much it costs IN MY COUNTRY! Don't be so arrogant to expect me to completely dismiss the circumstances of my entire home land!

All I got from that was SHINY, SHINY, SHINEY

Childish and desperate.

It's clear you cannot accept the truth I'm dealing, but I am amazed you stoop to the level of belittling repetition like a petulant toddler.

 

[Petromir]

Lets see:

Control methods:

PC has all the ones that matter, hell we had tilt controllers before the PS2 existed, we ditched them as they were even worse back then, plus there are hacks to make the wiimote and kinect work on the PC, and most standard console controllers work out of the box with the PC these days. PC wins hands down here.

Power:

PC is capable of so much more than the consoles are, hell my iMac runs PC games in an emulator (not bootcamp) and provides better graphics and smoother play.

Ease of Use:

This used to be the Consoles best selling point, but is slowly disaapearing. Installing on a PC is a piece of piss these days and consoles are gaing installs.

Other uses:

PC just annihalates dedicated consoles here, there is nothing a console does that a PC cannot do, and pleanty a PC can do that a console cannot do.

Comfort:

I can slouch on a sofa or couch, or chose any searting method I want with My PC, I have a weird thing called a brain and have worked out that I can set it up for my comfort. This is a draw, both can be used pretty much any situatiomn.

Cost:

The PC is more expensive, but the games tend to be much cheaper. The tiebreaker here is whether you are into selling games on, I don't, I like to come back to even really old games (and yes my windows 7 PC runs 99.9% of all games I've ever had from the last 18 years, and quite a few older games I got when they were old by that point).

Compatibility:

This is the clearest winner from the consoles point of view, in general at least, buying a game is easier the just know itt will work on a console, though this is getting hazy to, if you want all the original features of your PS3, without hacking it, and risking it being bricked, then kiss goodbye to the latest games.


So Yes the PC is the Ultimate games machine as things now stand but, that doesnt really make people any better if they are PC gamers than if they are console gamers.

 

[grumbel]

Yeah, all of this just shines a spotlight on your lack of technical knowledge.

Ad hominem attacks don't make valid arguments.

Again, if you prefer consoles for their simplicity, that's fine, just don't go running your mouth about a subject of which you are ignorant.

I actually do most of my gaming on PC with a gamepad.

DirectX 11 is such a "technical gimmick" that the next generation of consoles will be using it.

Yeah, and at that point it will stop being a technical gimmick as games will actually depend on it and make proper use of it, which is not the case today. DirectX 11 use is rare and even newly released games often don't bother using it, that's why it a gimmick. The theoretical technical capabilities don't matter nothing if games don't make active use of them.

Configuring a control scheme takes at most five minutes,

Wrong.

and having more options is a good thing, not bad.

Wrong again.

$500 will get you a PC that has more than double the rendering power of a console.

Yeah and it costs twice at much.

A game running much smoother is not an "unimportant detail," it majorly impacts the ability to play the game how it was meant to be played.

No, what matters is that the game runs at interactive playable framerates, everything beyond that is a nice bonus, but not critical.

PCs not successful? For EA and several others, the games they have released on the PC made more profit than their 360 and PS3 counterparts COMBINED. Obvious troll statement is obvious.

That is only true for a tiny number of PC centric games. For the majority of gaming the money is where the consoles are.

 

[Madman123456]

Yes, Consoles do have some Pull. Games are made for Consoles and if you put a game in, it will run. Most of times...

On PCs, Developers sometimes can't be asked to make a Version of the Game for the PC. It may run after some Fiddling, but some Flaws are just glaring and sometimes the DRM on your Game will just make it impossible to run on your System. Rockstar and Zbisoft are beyond ridiculous here.

I'm not saying i "boycott" Games from those Companies, nor would i call upon TEH Intarwebs to do so.
I wont be playing them because i don't like having too much Junk running on my Machine and getting rid of some of those Copy Protection Programs has proven to be more of a Hassle then killing Viruses.


Consoles will just run the Games without having the Publisher take a big Dump on your Hard Drive). That doesn't mean that the Consoles are the better Machines, but Companies seem to hate them a bit less it would seem.

Consoles are *not* better machines. They break down occasionally due to heating Issues and that's a Result of lazy, bad and cheap design.

I can not possible make a Machine like the current consoles because i do not have Parts that are cheap enough.

Some Games will have my GPU Fan running fairly fast, if it's really hot outside.

On Consoles, some Games may fry your System.


So in Essence, a selfmade PC is, with rather little Effort and a tiny Budget, a better Machine then any of the Consoles but People who make Games hate PCs.
Take your pick.

 

[azurine]

I prefer a good controller myself (except when playing valve games (which is the most fun I've ever had in first person)).

 

[floobie]

My opinion that I'm sure no one will read:

My gaming life has gone as follows:

- Got a Game Boy when I was 6 (1993). That's all I had, and all I really cared to play.
- Got a Sega Genesis a few years later (I'm guessing about 1995). I stuck to that and the Gameboy, occasionally played shareware versions of Commander Keen or Doom on the family computer.
- Got a Playstation (1997-1998, sorta). Mainly played that and the Gameboy.
- Got a Gameboy Color (whenever that was released). Played that (Pokemon Red!) and the Playstation.
- Got my first personal, new computer (2000). Still played the Gameboy and Playstation for a while, but eventually played PC games exclusively... what I'd consider the golden age of PC gaming, with the likes of Half Life, Deus Ex, Starcraft, Diablo 2, and all that good stuff coming out in one go.
- Got a PS2, about 2 days after the PS3 was released. Caught up on some awesome PS2 classics, still played PC games primarily.
- Got a PS3 in December 2010. Play that primarily now. My gaming PC is seeing less and less use, while my Macbook is by far and away my primary computer.

So, I've gone back and forth a few times. And, honestly, I think it correlates with how much I care about gaming. I was definitely most into it during my PC gaming days. These days, I'm much more casual about it. There really aren't that many PC exclusive titles that I MUST PLAY. Pretty much the only games I choose to play on my PC (or Macbook) are from Valve (Half Life and Portal mainly) and Blizzard (Starcraft and Diablo series). I still fire up the odd classic PC game that did everything right (Deus Ex), or a few games I bought before I got my PS3 (Mass Effect 1 and 2, Dragon Age). But, from here on, I'm sticking with the PS3. I don't need a particularly powerful computer to handle Valve and Blizzard games to my satisfaction. For everything else, the PS3 wins by sheer quantity and ease.

I don't play multiplayer games anymore. I don't play mods anymore. In terms of PC exclusives, the only series I'm interested in are Starcraft and Diablo. Valve games can even be had on consoles. I don't like Windows and I basically have the option to completely eliminate it from my life. So, the PS3 makes sense. My laptop can handle the few things it can't.

I still prefer the mouse and keyboard for shooters. But, I don't really play shooters such that it matters. The shooters I do play, I play for the story and such. Think Mass Effect, and presumably Deus Ex Human Revolution. The controls and combat are but one part of the experience, so I don't really care if they don't offer quite the same precision and speed of a mouse and keyboard. I cared back when I played Unreal Tournament or Team Fortress Classic. But I don't play those kinds of games anymore.

Graphics are always better on a decent PC. There's really no debating that. But, I don't really care at this point. The difference between "average" graphics and "good" graphics is completely meaningless to me. Literally no game made within the last, oh, 7 years has had graphics that distracted me from the gameplay. So, the difference between PC graphics and console graphics just don't matter to me.

I don't think PC gaming or console gaming are really "better". PC gaming is for people who demand that mouse and keyboard interface, want the best graphics possible, want maximum control and customizability of software and hardware, and enjoy tinkering. Console gaming is for people who just want to pop the disk in and go, aren't interested in the advantages of PC gaming, and don't want to have to worry about all the other stuff associated with a computer. I used to fall into the former category, now I fall into the latter. I get to play the games I want without having to deal with stuff I don't care about. Use what works better for you. Simple as that.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

See, if PC gamers want to claim that PCs > Consoles, then fine.

My problem is when they shout it in your face or when they start whole threads about how they are somehow "superior" to the rest of the gaming community.

You chose to play a video game on your PC rather than play it on a video game system. Good God, you're a shining beacon of human achievement.

It's always annoying to hear that argument (because it shouldn't need to be said), but you're completely right.
Fanboys (of anything) need to realize that the fact that they prefer one thing over another is not cause for celebration.

Choosing to kick a drug habit and go to habit over wasting away in front of your loved ones- that is cause to celebrate.

Choosing to play Crysis 2 on your $6000 custom machine over an Xbox is not. (Or vice versa)

Glad you said it out loud- people need to hear it.

Nine times out of ten it's a console enthusiast starting something they can't finish. We PC gamers just come in and give the facts, then watch 'em squirm. I don't think I've seen one PC > Console thread started since I first joined here. And that was quite some time ago. Early '07 to be exact.

Are you even listening to yourself?
"Those console gamers starting something they can't finish"?
"We give them the facts and watch them squirm"?

Do you honestly think you're in an actual feud with console gamers? Like it's life or death that you let "the facts" be known.
I really don't care what you play on- I'm just as annoyed by console fanboys as PC fanboys (which you obviously are).

(Pettiness activated): I'm pretty sure the only reason you don't hear PC gamers get irate over console gamers, is because their own self-love cannot possibly match that of the glorious PC gaming master race.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Console, PC.

Ain't nothin but forks and spoons. There are things eaten with a fork, things eaten with a spoon, some things can be eaten with either, but no real conflict amongst silverware.

EDIT: Goddamn, you people and your sporks. From now on, when I tell this analogy, I'm gonna mention every utensil I can think of.

Personally. I prefer eating with a knife. You can use it as a fork. And you can cut things with it. You can also use it to threaten the guy with the spoon if you for some reason want to eat soup.

Also to the guys saying that there is more money on consoles. You keep bringing up retail copies m8. I will be interrested once you put on Digital Distribution.

 

[grumbel]

Right. I don't even remember the last time I had to do anything other than simply plug in my wired Xbox 360 controller. It auto-configures itself for any game that's also on the 360...and that's a good chunk of 'em these days.

Unless you try Assassins Creed 2, which supports the wired controller, but not the wireless one. Or Bioshock 2 where they proudly proclaimed to have removed all controller support. Or Mass Effect or Minecraft a lot of other games that don't have any gamepad support to begin with. And hey, the only reason why there is solid gamepad support to begin with, is thanks to consoles.

That video is an hour long. Thank god I have the choice not to watch it available to me.

Give it a watch. While it doesn't specifically address the mouse/keyboard vs controller choice, it does address choice in general and why more doesn't lead to a better experience, but instead just makes you worry about everything you might be missing out. And that is also the core problem with the whole console vs PC thing. Consoles don't give you the best theoretically possible solution, but they give you one that is good enough and just works. No worry about how much RAM you need, which of the dozens of graphics card is the right choice and so on. PCs simply have way to many option for the average person to grasp, that's why they go with consoles.

If there would be a well established PC gaming platform, with reasonable CPU/GPU, small enough to fit in a living room and an OS tweaked for controller usage, it might very well be a very good competition for consoles, but right now, it just doesn't exist and giving that Microsoft own both Xbox360 and PC, I don't expect them to push the living room PC anytime soon again (they tried it in the past already without much success).

And if you've been playing both console and PC games even half as long as I have, you have surely noticed times where consoles dip below acceptable/playable framerates.

It happens, but it happens extremely rarely, as developers actually optimize their games for the platform. On the other side its pretty much the norm when you play on a low-end PC.

That $500 PC that will last you for four years won't bring you much joy in the last year, as dipping below 60fps will happen on rather regular basis or even much worse. And no, graphic setting don't help either, as its easy to run into issue with CPU limitations that no amount of tweaking can fix.

And yeah, I have been there, that's what I am currently gaming on.

No, I'm talking about cross-platform titles. EA took away more money from the PC last year than either of the two big consoles in that area. There was an article released here on the Escapist about it. Can't seem to find it now, but I'm sure somebody will.

Maybe: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/27/eas-non-gaap-figures-pc-beating-consoles/

But if I am reading that right, it is:

Xbox360: $152m
PS3: $111m
PC: $154m

So it's not PC beating consoles, it's only beating one console platform seen in isolation. And of course that seems to be projected numbers or something and the other set looks even worse:

PC: $205m
Xbox360: $345m
PS3: $308m

So doesn't look like a win for the glorious PC master race.

 

[bman804]

I like the modability and the generaly better RTSs that the PC has. I do hate bad ports of console games, though (Rockstar*ahem*). Also, you cannot upgrade a console without buying a whole new unit. Yes, PC's need upgrading after a while, but it has never really bothered me.

By the way, Dexter111, nice infographs.

 

[Treblaine]

$35 per month is still $420 per YEAR! And I assume a 24 month contract so $840 before you have that monkey off you back. A lot of money spread over a long time is STILL a lot of money.

For your "PC beater" lets compare it with my PC;

-2.5 inch screen (integrated) vs 24 inch screen (fully adjustable)
-tiny keyboard vs full size keyboard at desk height
-minuscule pointing device vs Logitech MX518 high precision mouse
-crappy stock browser vs Chrome
-can't run games vs can run games
-can't even write a Word document vs can do everything from Word document to presentation, as expected of a professional adult... not just spam text messages all day
-Ridiculously underpowered vs 7 years ago my PC would have been categorised as a supercomputer

You are being ripped off. And you seem to love it.

I have a £150 iPod touch for pocket-computing and a £10 pay-as-you-go phone for texting. Save around £700 for essentially the same functionality.

Why are you making completely irrellevent points? Do you honestly think you know what I need better then me. Are you that fucking arrogant? Are you that fucking stupid? As I said before I have absolutely no use for a computer at home. Yet you seem to think otherwise, kind of idiotic on your part.

I pay an extra $10 a month for my phone so I dont need to buy a $400 computer, guess I saved myself some money there.

All I got from that was SHINY, SHINY, SHINEY

Childish and desperate.

It's clear you cannot accept the truth I'm dealing, but I am amazed you stoop to the level of belittling repetition like a petulant toddler.

The only thing you talked about was how great the graphics are on a PC so my statement still stands.

You mean you never need to write a formal letter? You NEED that if you don't want to end up on the economic trash heap. Or do you actually "need" computers.

I made several VERY GOOD points that you just ignored.

Also don't act like graphics are irrelevant or else the 360 and PS3 wouldn't exist. It would all just be PS2 and Wii.

 

[Treblaine]

I was agree with you, right up until you had go and say; BTW...PC gaming is a $16+ Billion industry and growing at a 20% rate. If anything, consoles are scared by the fact computers are taking new forms and stealing away huge chunks of their revenue.

Sure we do take some of there revenue, but "huge chunks?" That's just laughable. PC gaming doesn't even slightly scare consoles in terms of revenue.

I'm not sure about his numbers but he is right about the trend e.g. money spending on console games (and general console hardware too) was a decreasing market in the past 3 years or so.
I can't tell you the reasons, your guess is as good as mine... rise of mobile/social gaming, people getting tired of their old consoles, used sales, people getting back on the PC I don't know.
What I do know though, is that Digital Distribution and the "Free2Play" and "Casual" model is booming on the PC right now (notice that "Consoles" is all of them together e.g. Xbox, Playstation, Wii and Handhelds while the PC numbers are split in PC boxed/PC digital, MMOs and Casual/Social):

That info-graphic tries SO HARD to hide the impact of gaming on PC.

Consoles for ALL the games to play on that: boxed retail, download, DLC is all condences into one big chunk.

But PC is divided into: Casual Websites, Social Networks, MMO games and - this is what gets me - dividing traditional PC games by Boxed and Download... THEY DIDN'T DO THAT FOR CONSOLES!

But with that, how much is PC gaming making in America - the home of Xbox:

[HEADING=2]11.5 Billion Dollars[/HEADING]

Compared to EVERYTHING console makes: 8.0 billion dollars. That means PC gaming is almost 50% more lucrative. And conventional PC gaming alone is $4.3 billion. That is JUST the PC game games against:
-PSP games
-Nintendo DS games
-3DS games
-PS2 games
-PS3 games
-Xbox 360 games
-Wii games games

So JUST the games of one platform against all the games of 7 different platforms from 3 mega corporations with all their muscle behind them.

I think PC is doing pretty good.