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

[Treblaine]

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.

You say "give an example" I give three and you are like "hurr, but not ALL PC games have DX11".

But all PC games DO have significantly better graphics than consoles. The industry is slowly coming around to realising this but you are a living embodiment of why such an idea is resisted.

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.

The games where a gamepad is a necessity have good gamepad support. The foolishness comes from trying to play something like Lost Planet 2 with a gamepad when Mouse and Keyboard is better in every way. Gamepad is for something like a Racing game where you need tiny single-degree adjustments in steering.

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.

Except it DOES! PC games in general are cheaper than console and on Steam especially so. I got Magicka for £2.71, Left 4 dead 2 for £6.80 and over a year ago Metro 2033 for only £6.12 when today the best online retailer's price (for the PC version) is £7.99!

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?

First of all, I compared with Steam with the High Steet (retail stores, actual shops) not Steam vs Amazon.

Why don't you Compare like WITH LIKE:

Amazon AC: Brotherood 360 = £30.69 [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Assassins-Creed-Brotherhood-Xbox-360/dp/B003L0OVMO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313429580&sr=8-1]
Amazon AC: Brotherhood PC = £13.82 [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Assassins-Creed-Brotherhood-Xbox-360/dp/B003L0OVMO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313429580&sr=8-1]

122% price difference of PC vs Xbox for the exact same example. No cherry picking here, I went direct to Amazon.

And interestingly enough Assassin's Cred brotherhood on Steam is... £29.99. Without ANY sales discount.

Even if steam loses, PC still wins.

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.

They specifically don't allow modding BECAUSE ACTIVISION ARE MONEY GRUBBING CON ARTISTS! Modding IS still supported, only the most bitter resistance of the most indifferent publsihers do it.

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.

This is your anti-logic:

"if it can't completely max out the settings therefore it is as shitty as console. Console wins... somehow"

let me spell thing out to you, AGAIN:

A $500 gaming PC can outperform an Xbox 360, consistently and undeniably.

It just can't max out every-single-game to the very highest level, still better than console.

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.

You know about all the extra costs of XBL Gold membership, expensive proprietary hard drives, etc. You are moving the goal post too, I started talking about buying at the beginning of this generation, today certainly $500 would get you a beast of a machine.

#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.

"pretty much"

You think simple logic will save this for you? You could as easily argue Wii versions of games are "pretty much" the same as 360/PS3 versions. Why bother with 360? Just release Halo 3 on Original Xbox, it's pretty much the same. THAT, is what you sound like. That is your position, a champion for mediocrity.

All these add up to make a huge 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).

You forgot Minecraft, Wow, Diablo 3, Starcraft, Every valve game, Witcher 2, Total War, Torchlight, E.Y.E and how there every year there are only a handful of games that are worth playing which don't see a PC release.

 

[Pikey Mikey]

I like both controllers and Mouse+Keyboard, but one being better than the other depends on what game you're playing. For example, I'll always take M+Kb over controller when playing Dawn of War II (Retribution). And when playing Oblivion, I prefer a controller. They have different fields of usage, if I can say that in the same way that I mean it (hopefully)

 

[Treblaine]

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 already have a well paying job that I am perfectly comfortable to stay in for now. If I need to write up a formal letter or resume I can simply go to the library and use the computer there.

I made several VERY GOOD points that you just ignored.

I didnt ignore any good points.

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.

I for one would be fine with ps2 era graphics. The reason we have the 360 and ps3 is because the ps2 and xbox were not powerful enough to create the kind of games developers wanted to make. Not everybody cares about graphics, a point that has been proven again and again.

Ah so you DO need a computer, you just have to go begging to the state when you actually need one. Say, are you replying to this thread on you blackberry, why would you put yourself through that? Are you some sort of masochist? Or has signing up to a long and expensive contract prejudiced you so much that ou cannot think against your ideals that it is "worth the money".

Wait, you have BOTH a PS3 and a 360?!?!

You bought two HD consoles and skipped the wii and claim you don't care about graphics. Bull.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Riiiiight.

So because one platform (for one company) isn't as lucrative than THE OTHER TWO COMBINED then it is a complete fail. A company like EA with such a focus on consoles.

PS3 isn't making as much money as 360, does that make it a failure?

PS3 and 360 may be united by a common design and business ethos (both games consoles) but they are still distinct platforms.

I remind you, just one Company is making $205 million off PC and there isn't a press conference for PC at E3, there isn't even a booth, hell there is NO agency championing PC gaming. No advertising, no marketing. It gets where it is purely on its earned reputation.

 

[grumbel]

They specifically don't allow modding BECAUSE ACTIVISION ARE MONEY GRUBBING CON ARTISTS! Modding IS still supported, only the most bitter resistance of the most indifferent publsihers do it.

So are plenty other, see Diablo3. Or John Carmack talk about Rage. The big days of modding seem over.

quote]It just can't max out every-single-game to the very highest level, still better than console.[/quote]
Yeah, and in two or three years you have to buy a new one. $500 PC's are not the thing that will be much good for gaming five years down the road, especially when the new console generation raises the bar and the "cheap console ports" no longer look so cheap.

The only reason why the $500 is viable in the first place is because you get ports of five year old console hardware.

You know about all the extra costs of XBL Gold membership, expensive proprietary hard drives, etc.

Nobody is forcing you to buy XBL Gold and all games are guaranteed to be playable with the lowest end Xbox360.

You are moving the goal post too,

I am not moving it, I don't have any to begin with. As I am not taking part in the stupid "console is superior to PC or the other way around" argument. I have both and I play with whatever seems to be the better fit for the game at hand. Consoles win certain aspects, such as in the ease of use by a mile and PCs do in others such as the customizability/open-platform thing. Both of course also have plenty of issues.

You think simple logic will save this for you? You could as easily argue Wii versions of games are "pretty much" the same as 360/PS3 versions. Why bother with 360? Just release Halo 3 on Original Xbox, it's pretty much the same.

You are missing the point. The point here is that PC ports of console games are exactly identical to their console games in terms of level layout and gameplay. The same is not true for the Wii, Wii games are most of the times completly different games from their Xbox360/PS3/PC counterparts, developed by different teams, featuring different level layouts, different art styles and so on.

You couldn't just port a Xbox360/PS3/PC game over to a Xbox1 or Wii as limits in RAM and CPU power would make it impossible to run them. The same jump hasn't yet happened with PC vs console, games can still reasonably easily swap from one platform to the other.

Of course one can argue that in theory one could build a PC game so awesome that it couldn't be ported to consoles, but that would be pretty much a theoretical argument, as the native hardcore PC game has kind of died with Crysis1. Everybody is now going multiplatform and no longer targeting the high end PC hardware. Thus a high end PC brings you little more then higher resolution and a bit of filtering and a lot of people just don't care about that.

 

[grumbel]

So because one platform (for one company) isn't as lucrative than THE OTHER TWO COMBINED then it is a complete fail. A company like EA with such a focus on consoles.

Who said anything of failure? The point here isn't that the PC is a failure, but simply that it isn't the main focus of most companies. It's a platform games get ported to, not the main target platform. The consolified user interfaces interfaces in PC games are ample proof of that.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

PCs really are just the objectively superior platform. Nothing is wrong with likely consoles (I have a PS3 for console exclusives), but its incorrect to say that they are equal, as a PC can do everything a console can do (and do it better as well) as well as having literally thousands, if not millions, of other fuctions.

I would counter that with just one thing - the ease of use with a console.

On PC there are more potential problems you can run into with compatibility, operating systems, requirements etc... with a console 99% of the time you just pop the disc in and play.

I am saving up for a gaming PC at the moment (as I want to play Skyrim at its best) and my head is spinning from all the numbers and jargon- it's confusing to me. I miss just being able to go 'this works with that, yay!'.

 

[Treblaine]

Shame about modding for a lot of games, but ID software have without fail released the source code for every game engine they use (Doom 3 engine just recently). Rage will get the same soon enough.

The thing is you can't do any modding at all on consoles, the games are utterly static.

It just can't max out every-single-game to the very highest level, still better than console.

Yeah, and in two or three years you have to buy a new one. $500 PC's are not the thing that will be much good for gaming five years down the road, especially when the new console generation raises the bar and the "cheap console ports" no longer look so cheap.

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. 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.

In fact the upgrade would probably cost less than 3 years of XBL Gold Membership, 3x $60 = $180

The only reason why the $500 is viable in the first place is because you get ports of five year old console hardware.

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.

PC plays those ports 2-3x better than console, don't kid yourself that console is somehow besting PC because of it's artificially low standard.

Nobody is forcing you to buy XBL Gold and all games are guaranteed to be playable with the lowest end Xbox360.

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".

Online multiplayer is a VERY BASIC THING! It's not like kinect or an extra-gamepad, it is an essential element that hugely inflates the costs. THAT is moving the goal posts.

You are missing the point. The point here is that PC ports of console games are exactly identical to their console games in terms of level layout and gameplay. The same is not true for the Wii, Wii games are most of the times completly different games from their Xbox360/PS3/PC counterparts, developed by different teams, featuring different level layouts, different art styles and so on.

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.

You couldn't just port a Xbox360/PS3/PC game over to a Xbox1 or Wii as limits in RAM and CPU power would make it impossible to run them. The same jump hasn't yet happened with PC vs console, games can still reasonably easily swap from one platform to the other.

Of course one can argue that in theory one could build a PC game so awesome that it couldn't be ported to consoles, but that would be pretty much a theoretical argument, as the native hardcore PC game has kind of died with Crysis1. Everybody is now going multiplatform and no longer targeting the high end PC hardware. Thus a high end PC brings you little more then higher resolution and a bit of filtering and a lot of people just don't care about that.

No need for theory, there are already games that are impossible to port to consoles without any practicality of porting to consoles without it ending up like the equivalent of Black-ops-wii:

-Crysis
-Total War series
-Dawn of War II Saga
-Red Orchestra 2
-ARMA 2 (the sheer scale and complexity)
-Hard Reset
-Shattered Horizon
-Witcher 2
-STALKER games (again, too big and complex for measly 250MB RAM consoles)

 

[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?

 

[Treblaine]

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.

 

[grumbel]

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.

 

[-Dragmire-]

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.

 

[scott91575]

I dont care if other people respond but its idiotic to get all pissed off becuase you dont know what people are talking about when you jump into the middle of a discussion. If your going to jump in the middle then the intelligent thing would be to read all the previous posts.

Actually, someone made a point in general that people need PC's. That was the point. You may be the exception, but from your posts it's pretty clear you missed many a point. The vast majority of people use PC's for all those things I mentioned plus more.

Please don't lecture anyone on intelligence. It's pretty clear you have the usefulness and intelligence of a chimp (and that is being generous). You have no clue what a pound is, you think games run on consoles better, and in general you have the attitude of a foul mouthed, idiotic, ignorant teenager.

Next time you have a thought, do the world a favor and let it go. Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth a remove all doubt. Let's just say there is not much doubt about you in this thread.