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

[aprildog18]

OnLive. Use a controller to play games on a PC!

Anyways, I mainly play on PC so now you know which side I'm on.

For FPS, I think it is easier because you can easily to a 180 turn with mouse, bunny hop like a boss (or noob) and go for those precise aiming (which is why BF doesn't have weapon sway on consoles).
There's more buttons on the keyboard than on a controller.
Cross console competition studies show average PC gamers using PC can beat elite console gamers (because of the mouse I believe...faster turning, not because people playing on consoles are dumb).
Save files on PC can easily be backed up on a jump drive or whatever and as OP said, have mods, give myself 500000 of all resources in ME2, and 999999 ammo in Fallout 3

However...PC needs to get upgraded once a while(or it turns into poop)...like once every 4 years but mainly it is the video card that needs upgrading (like $200?) But PC can be used for surfing Internet, listening to music, doing homework (well easier than doing it on a console).

But if you party a lot (play co-op, games like brawl), consoles is the way to go. I don't think it is possible for 4 people to be playing on one PC..

But people already use PC for lots of things (if you are in school) so why not also play games on it instead of buying a console?

BUT FOR SURE, when playing with friends, console wins (unless playing lego games) (but we have starcraft, hsuahsuahsua)

 

[GeorgW]

I have all consoles, I have a PC, I game on all of them for a variety of reasons and with a variety of games. Why is consoles vs PC even an issue?

Part of it is price, though I think a major element is commitment.

Like paying for XBL Gold Membership, you are paying a large sum of money to play those games online and if you don't use that opportunity then you are squandering your investment.

Then there is the rather self-fulfilling element of friends lists. People who get an Xbox 360 for whatever reason tend to make friends with people who are also on Xbox Live, so when challenged about trying another platfrom they of course say:

"but all my friends are on Xbox Live"

Well of course they are. If you don't have a PS3 you won't have friends on PSN! And vica versa.

Marketing is also hugely important and is hard to overstate. marketing does far more than merley convince people to buy into something, it actually makes them enjoy the thing more! After being saturated with coca-cola advertising a bottle of cola tastes better if you JUST stick a coca-cola label on it.

That's the power of things like the Xbox logo that the Steam logo just cannot do as well, not without spending hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing.

All I was saying is that as long as people are enjoying the game, who cares what platform it's on?
Also (I can't believe I'm gonna get into this), the general feel I'm getting is that all the PC gamers feel bullied by the big bad consoles and their marketing; but I much prefer Steam over Xbox live, much like many other; PC gaming is bigger than it's ever been; and a lot of people are taking the market more seriously. Sure there's still bullshit DRM and crappy console ports, but just look at the AAA titles coming out this fall, how many of those have DirectX 11 support or claims that PC is their main platform? Just look around in this thread and see how many PC gamers there are. You've already won and you're still fighting!

As for me, I know PC is superior, but some games I'd rather play on consoles. So much of this argument would disappear if people could just accept that people usually don't think consoles are better, technically, they're just lazy. And given that gaming is entertainment, sometimes I feel I have the right to be lazy and don't have to go searching for hours for a bugfix that only affects my, extremely obscure, graphics card and just instead pop in the disc and go. Hey, funny story, every time I launch Braid it claims it can't run below a 800x600 resolution, even though I have much higher, but it still runs in the background.

I have all consoles, I have a PC, I game on all of them for a variety of reasons and with a variety of games.

Out of curiosity, do you have just the recent ones or, like me, do you collect and save all your previous consoles?

I'm missing some key consoles from Sega(I wish I had a dreamcast), the virtual boy(I only want it to say I have it...) and anything predating nes. I'm also down on handhelds but I do have the great beginnings ones(Original Game Boy and GameGear) mainly for nostalgia value, then again that could apply to most of my systems...

I play both PC and console as well and I agree, there shouldn't be as large a divide in gamers but gamers are people and people love to argue.

I haven't really played long enough to have a collection, unfortunately. I do still have my old consoles, but they only go back to PS1.

 

[Treblaine]

So let me get this straight, in two or three years time I will need a WHOLE new PC because there will supposedly be a next generation of consoles.

Yes, that how it has always worked. A new console generation always means a big jump compared to the last generation and you can bet that this will have a very large impact on how PC gaming will look like.

Nope. I will need to merely upgrade such a PC (with and extra video card in SLI configuration) while console-loyalists would have to fork out likely close to $600 for a new platform with very few games.

When the console costs $600 and is subsidized by the manufacturer, how exactly do you expect a $500 PC, non-subsidized without games specifically optimized for it, to keep up with that?

Except for how PC kept pace even at the beginning of this generation when it was 1-year console hardware. And all the generations before this too.

An expensive gaming PC maybe, not a cheap $500 midrange PC.

Yes they are. If I want something as reasonable as to play online multiplayer I have to pay up. You want to have you cake and eat it. You want to claim that 360 can do everything PC can do (including online) for far less money but when it is pointed out how much it costs to do all those things you then move the goalposts "OK, online isn't important".

Then buy a PS3, PC or pay the Microsoft tax if online is that important. I personally don't care for it, but yeah, Xbox360 online is pretty overpriced, one of the reason why I went with a PS3.

Hmm, Black Ops and COD4 reflex had identical layout on Wii. That is perfect example of how you can just dial everything down SUPER LOW and still fit all the "stuff" in the game.

The only reason why that worked is because that's a primitive corridor shooter, you'd have a much harder time with all the open world games. And anyway, even in the CoD case they had to redo engine, assets and stuff, so it wasn't just a quick and easy port.

How will a $500 PC with $180 upgrade beat a new subsidised console? Same way it did at the beginning of THIS generation. Same as the beginning of the generation before that.

As to corridor shooters, there are PC games too that are just too large, sprawling and detailed to be ported to consoles as I listed in my previous post to you... that you have again ignored.

So now we are talking PS3 rather than Xbox 360.

Well lets take a look at the PS3 now then shall we? Didn't launch in Europe till March 2007 where it cost £425! Have you any idea what kind of PC you could get for £425 back in mid-2007? Back when the pound was so powerful £425 had as much buying power as $850? Sure PS3 had blu-ray, for a revolution in home-media that never materialised as it became all about streaming content and no one really cared about The Matrix in 1080p... it just meant it was easier to see the stunt wires.

I have a lot of respect for Sony for their investment and support of developers to make games like Uncharted, Resistance, Motorstorm, Infamous and Killzone games and many others.

But I don't give a hoot about the hardware, it does nothing special. I'd be just fine if Sony put the same effort with developing these games into PC gaming, a market where these games can reach their full potential.

 

[grumbel]

How will a $500 PC with $180 upgrade beat a new subsidised console? Same way it did at the beginning of THIS generation. Same as the beginning of the generation before that.

If by that you mean, not at all, not even close. Sure I can agree with that. Even a single generation ago you couldn't even get a half descent gaming PC for $500, let alone two generations ago.

 

[Treblaine]

How will a $500 PC with $180 upgrade beat a new subsidised console? Same way it did at the beginning of THIS generation. Same as the beginning of the generation before that.

If by that you mean, not at all, not even close. Sure I can agree with that. Even a single generation ago you couldn't even get a half descent gaming PC for $500, let alone two generations ago.

What the hell are you talking about?

Why have you got this idea that the only capable gaming PC is for way way more than $500 or $680 or something?

Look on the internet, use google, you'll find dozens of examples of builds that costs only $500-600 circa 2007 that beat the 360 soundly. It ain't much to beat, graphics card is equivalent of ATi X1950 XT.

Bioshock is well known for not being super optimised for PC but the game does actually match Xbox 360 performance with an ATi X1950 XT card:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maN0FC5UlE8

The ATI 1000 series from 2005... currently in the 6000 series. Easy to match that performance and certainly manageable to beat it.

 

[grumbel]

Look on the internet, use google, you'll find dozens of examples of builds that costs only $500-600 circa 2007 that beat the 360 soundly.

The Xbox360 was released at the end of 2005 and articles such as this from 2006:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2107/5

Still put the minimum at around $700+ for the bare hardware components, you still need a case, a Windows license, keyboard, mouse, gamepad and other stuff that quickly adds another $200 on top of that. So no, $500 gaming PC that can compete with a $400 Xbox360 didn't exist back then, even less so in 2005. Also note that the GPU in the Xbox360 is still more powerful then what is in that PC (doubly so if you take into account that Xbox360 games are actually optimized for the hardware, unlike PC games).

Also that PC happens to be rather similar to what I run here and I can tell you: Not exactly what the average PC gamer would call a good gaming experience. While it runs some older games perfectly fine (Dead Space), it produces only barely playable frame rates in other games such as Assassins Creed, that is of course only after another $70 spend on a new GPU. The PC is pretty much CPU limited these days and thus not really usable for anything bleeding edge. So time for an upgrade, while the Xbox360 has at least another year or two going for it.

 

[kitolz]

I'm pretty curious about how a new generation of consoles will affect PC gaming. A lot of developers design their games around the tech level of current gen consoles, but PC hardware has been getting cheaper and more powerful.

The minimum gaming rig is the cheapest its ever been, comparatively speaking. Around here, I can assemble an ok gaming rig (tower only, to play F.3.A.R. for example) for around $300. I wonder how a new generation will affect the barrier of entry to PC gaming with regards to pricing.

But I think the biggest limiting factor for PC gaming is the tech savvy required to take full advantage of it. Not everybody wants to deal with it, but I personally find the problem solving aspect of it to be very rewarding. Like a meta-game to play the game (as long as I don't have to deal with it all the goddamn time).

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I think you've missed the point, as an avid PC gamer I must say the cheaper cost of consoles IS the argument.

People are perfectly welcome to buy economy cars, but they probably shouldn't pretend they're having the same driving experience as someone who buys luxury.

That and the ever loved personal preference.

Anyone who "prefers" the economy car to the luxury equivalent is a liar or an idiot.

PCs are more expensive. At this point, that's pretty much their only downside. Of course you do tend to get what you pay for...

 

[Keepeas]

more functional

You were being sarcastic right? PC games require like 5 minutes of checking every time you want to play, you're usually reliant on other companies servers. The downloading, installing, updating always take longer than consoles. Consoles are FAR more functional than pcs.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Let me just give that "quote" some context.

I have both a PC and consoles.

PC, while technologically better and more functional,
is costly compared to a console

Okay...first off, I don't think I've ever had a "5 minutes of checking problem" if you could elaborate on it would help me out.

Second, what does that have to do with the functionality of a PC?
The PC quite literally has MORE FUNCTIONS than a console. You cannot argue that. It's a fact.
You can do more with a computer than you can do with a console.

If you were trying to say that the PC isn't technologically better,
well perhaps what I really meant was "technologically more advanced and upgradeable/adaptable"
(although it could be a pain to develop for all the different types of PC's)

 

[Throwitawaynow]

if you could elaborate on it would help me out.

Check out my posts through my profile. I elaborated a lot. Many did not agree with me, but we agreed to disagree. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/posts/Rationalization

 

[Dyme]

Ever realized that it is ALWAYS console people starting those threads, even though they have absolutely zero (0) reason to talk about it at all? If anyone could complain about "Console vs PC" it would be the PC people.

 

[robert01]

PC gaming has the potential to have the best gaming experience because it can emulate ANY console, or has the potential to.
The biggest things that I think console games have over PC gaming for the moment is cost. PC gaming is fucking expensive if you want a computer that will give you decent graphics with a decent frame rate compared to console gaming. Even a brand new generation console is cheaper than a gaming rig. And because these are cheaper than PCs, most AAA games are designed cross platform and are designed backwards(in my opinion), and you never see the true potential of what a PC can live up to. How many games require DX11? Not that many, how long has it been out? A while. Why XB360 uses DX9. Until the next generation of consoles comes out you wont see many games use the newer technology. It is how it is.
Also constant upgrading is a misconception. You don't need to constantly upgrade your PC. If you buy the right one the first time around, you really will only need to upgrade the GPU which again, if smart purchases are made doesn't cost bundles and bundles of money.
Some games are good with a controller, like platforms, fighting, racing, and some action games depending on the style. But for FPS, RTS, and any complex RPG, the keyboard and mouse is the best form of input.

 

[Keepeas]

if you could elaborate on it would help me out.

Check out my posts through my profile. I elaborated a lot. Many did not agree with me, but we agreed to disagree. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/posts/Rationalization

snip

snip

Snip

I'm just going to give you some times that apply only to me and why I believe consoles are more functional in that they require less time to play. Just from a time perspective.

For midnight launches I have been able to get there and back within 30min. The drive is 10 minutes to it 10 minutes back, and at a max 10 minutes while there as I don't show up early. Updating a xbox 360 game doesn't take longer than 5 minutes. If it isn't a midnight launch for those that say you need a pre-order I have NEVER not gotten a game because I didn't pre-order. Midnight launches gives u a free pre-order if you do go.

I just opened steam and installing Civ 5 requires 55 min. Installing team fortress 2 is 1 hour 5 minutes. Both take longer than driving to retail. EditGetting everything ready for Witcher 2, Mass Effect 2, WoW, SC2, LoL, pretty much any game that isn't on steam took significantly longer. Steam is pretty amazing for their speed, and ease of use. However getting everything ready for torchlight still took a minute and 51 seconds. Longer than black ops.

I just timed it and booting up my xbox 360, and getting in game to a Black Ops ground war took 1 minute and 34 seconds. Booting my computer and then getting in game to WoW took 2 minutes and 26 seconds. Booting my computer and then getting in game to LoL took 5 minutes and 53 seconds. Everything took longer than the console equivalent.

Someone mentioned HoN, it also requires login and it's not the queues that kill u, it's the loading screen where you wait for others. Someone mocked my hard drive space requirement, did you not see that I said with new ones it doesn't matter, but uninstalling games you no longer play does? Someone was skeptical about my connection, I have a great connection, no matter what game I play as long as I am on a us server I'm not above 100ms.

I didn't back up my files and that was terrible of me. I've recently remedied this. However backing up files does not help the actual time it takes to get back the downloads and installations of games even if they were backed up. Because you end up having to download it back when restoring.

I have the new 250gb xbox 360 it doesn't make noise and I have 0 space problems. Seems like a lot of people missed the part where I said that space isn't an issue anymore.

People were also misconstruing my point of loading. I never meant the loading screens in game where you have to load up a new instance, or the loading screen in Fallout NV when you leave a building. I meant the time it takes to start a game and then start playing it. Hope this was edited correctly and I responded to those I quoted adequately.

Wow third edit, but someone mentioned a 5TB hard drive. Looking up 5TB hard drive only came up with this massive external thing for $875. New egg only goes up to 3 for internal and they're all over $150, 100 euro, 92 pounds. Someone said 2TB for 40 pounds, or was that euro? Those are going for $100, 70 euro, 60 pounds.

Ah, that's what you mean...the set-up time.
You certainly did explain yourself.

Sorry about your experience with Ubisoft and EA...those dicks make people do too much in order to play their game, I agree. They treat they're costumers like criminals and I think it's wrong.

I agree that it can take a while sometimes on PC.
But Console has it's moments too.
But most of my complains for both PC and console are either one-time per game set-up or occasional, but helpful, updates.
Those things being:
Sign-up
download*
install*
update*
etc.

* = important and necessary

Both PC and consoles have limitations, so giving you your game instantly is impossible.
Releases - Console - you said 30 min
PC - If you pre-loaded 5 - 45 min depending on game size

You know what I'm going to stop writing...I'm tired and...yeah

Bottom-line: I think both have essentially equivalent set-up times if you look at every aspect and weigh them accordingly. I know you probably won't agree because I didn't explain...but that's cool...wanna play a game sometime? message me if you do...I'm going to bed now...

EDIT:
btw I like Ponies[small]...if you couldn't tell from my avatar[/small]

 

[Treblaine]

Look on the internet, use google, you'll find dozens of examples of builds that costs only $500-600 circa 2007 that beat the 360 soundly.

The Xbox360 was released at the end of 2005 and articles such as this from 2006:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2107/5

Still put the minimum at around $700+ for the bare hardware components, you still need a case, a Windows license, keyboard, mouse, gamepad and other stuff that quickly adds another $200 on top of that. So no, $500 gaming PC that can compete with a $400 Xbox360 didn't exist back then, even less so in 2005. Also note that the GPU in the Xbox360 is still more powerful then what is in that PC (doubly so if you take into account that Xbox360 games are actually optimized for the hardware, unlike PC games).

Also that PC happens to be rather similar to what I run here and I can tell you: Not exactly what the average PC gamer would call a good gaming experience. While it runs some older games perfectly fine (Dead Space), it produces only barely playable frame rates in other games such as Assassins Creed, that is of course only after another $70 spend on a new GPU. The PC is pretty much CPU limited these days and thus not really usable for anything bleeding edge. So time for an upgrade, while the Xbox360 has at least another year or two going for it.

That is an atrocious build and at the wrong time. Geforce cards were SHIIIIT in the 7000 series and overpriced like hell, it's also gone for a premium CPU that has a 15% performance boost for 2x the costs. A lot would change in a short time.

There is no reason to rush off the upgrade in 2006 when 360 doesn't even have games that really push the system, it's still flooded with games limited by how they started development on 6th gen consoles, like Tomb Raider, Hitman, Just Cause, etc. Something like Prey on 360 doesn't actually beat PC performance when most graphics cards are benchmarking the game at 1600x1200 resolution, 360 was hitting low at 1280x720@30fps.

PC would only begin to feel the heat coming into the tail end of 2007 with the likes of Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, UT3, and Orange Box that delivered HDR Half Life + Episodes, Portal and of course Team Fortress 2.

Now it's obvious with hindsight, but it was clear even back then, you'd be an UTTER FOOL to try to play Team Fortress 2 on anything other than PC. Valve was completely hamstrung by the XBL marketplace while on PC for the next 4 years we were rewarded with a continuous stream of free updates.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47055
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/246852-13-budget-gaming-8800-3870

PS: don't buy the $200 retail copy of Windows, get the OEM version for about $50. You are entitled to that as you are in fact building your own rig. And this is a reason to wait till 2007, for Vista. As much as people like to piss on it, it is in fact a better OS than XP, but most importantly DX10 and DX10 cards in 2007. Cards like the 8800GT, $250 in 2007 it still kicks arse today, lets see 8800GT running Batman: Arkham Asylum


And Assassin's Creed Brotherhood


I've been saying this for a while now, 8800GT is an absolute classic delivering a lot of lasting performance for what was a very competitive price and throughout this gen it has been slashed in price by greater % than the 360 (which took 3 years to go down by 25%), the 8800GT tech and other components went down to by 50% in just a year. The same hardware is $50 in 2011, 20% of it's original price.

Then there is quite how well the 8800GT performs in SLI dual-card configuration by dropping in another card once cheap enough, lets see that in action:


But the thing is you have to look at PC for what it is, rather than what it isn't. It's not just the gaming capability but so too the computing capability to run modern work and browsing apps. Also the freedom it offers, freedom from the console system's inflated game prices, fees, shutdowns and uncompetitive store models.

360 occasionally offers some of the media capability of a PC in a stripped down form after you pay $60/£40 fee every year, but the capability of PC platform is hard to comprehend, you'd struggle to hit the limits.

 

[grumbel]

Consoles relied on long tech cycles, but those cycles are getting so short consoles are as obsolete as a steam shovel, pager, or commodore 64.

Huh? Where exactly are the cycles getting shorter? This console cycle is longer then ever before.

 

[phYnc]

Just to point out, cross platform gaming will never be truly balanced because the precision of mouse and keyboard is too far ahead of controllers to keep it balanced.

only really applies to FPS and RTS

and i suppose some MMOs

I'm sorry what? How can any MMO be better on a console? I could be totally wrong if you can name some but I don't know any.

The only genre I think is better on a console are platformers as the directional movement is better using a pad than a keyboard but you could just buy a pad for the PC (wired 360 controller) which is sorta cheating.