Exactly, and that's what I meant before when I said about people seemingly not considering what PCs will be capable of when all the gadgets catch up to what current PCs are doing.Xzi said:
The Big Picture: PC Gaming Is Dead - Long Live PC Gaming!
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This video is pretty dumb and I disagree with most of it, but watching hardcore PC enthusiasts react to these things is hilarious (not that some of their points aren't completely valid, as I said the video is hardly the best thought out and deceptively titled for shock value). It really should have said that PCs are changing and evolving, which is hardly news. It's pretty obvious that no handheld gadget will ever match a stationary computing system in power, although as time goes on that may become less important because computing power will eventually surpass what any game will use because of manpower limitations.
Actually, it just occurred to me: We always talk about how much better mouse and keyboard controls are for shooters and RTS games (I would never dispute either of these), but why does no one ever talk about he types of games PC controls are terrible for? WASD and mouse controls are both consistently awful at controlling vehicles compare to analog sticks (why do you think all the old flight sims needed sticks to be good?), 3D platforming and action games also play much more smoothly on a controller (I defy you to argue that something like Devil May Cry plays better with normal PC controls). Just felt like throwing it out there because this thread seems to have devolved into the usual debate at this point. Arguing that you can plug a controller into a PC doesn't count, because I can just as easily get a mouse and keyboard hooked up to a current gen console.
Actually, it just occurred to me: We always talk about how much better mouse and keyboard controls are for shooters and RTS games (I would never dispute either of these), but why does no one ever talk about he types of games PC controls are terrible for? WASD and mouse controls are both consistently awful at controlling vehicles compare to analog sticks (why do you think all the old flight sims needed sticks to be good?), 3D platforming and action games also play much more smoothly on a controller (I defy you to argue that something like Devil May Cry plays better with normal PC controls). Just felt like throwing it out there because this thread seems to have devolved into the usual debate at this point. Arguing that you can plug a controller into a PC doesn't count, because I can just as easily get a mouse and keyboard hooked up to a current gen console.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the PC has a ton of great exclusives? Because if so that's entirely true and is a very important consideration, especially for fans of certain genres. If you mean that the PC gets all the good games that consoles get regardless of exclusivity you are, quite frankly, stark raving mad and quite possibly foaming at the mouth as you type. This is a legitimate question, by the way. I'm really not sure what you mean and would like to know.mdazfrench said:While the consoles flame each other to death, I get all the exclusives that they deny each other.
You know, the RAM comparison comes up a lot, but it completely ignores the fact that because of their uniform design and dedicated function consoles are able to use that small amount of RAM far more efficiently than a PC could. Sure, it won't get you the same result as a PC with 8 or 10 gigs in it, but it goes a lot farther than the number comparison would suggest. Also, I've been PC gaming for a while (started back in '95) and I've seen my fair share of load screens even with up-to-date hardware. What you're presenting is the ideal of PC gaming but not necessarily the reality of it. In other words, just because the power to implement those things exists doesn't mean that developers are always capable of taking advantage of them. You're also glossing over all the issues that varied hardware can cause on a PC.Shoelip said:
Bob, while posting your video under what can (and probably will be) considered such and inflammatory will get you more views, the very essence of what you are arguing has a much different bent.
Perhaps next time you might go with "The New Form of PC Gaming" or some such instead of one that will leave us with page after page of flames.
Oh, and I found your reasoning a bit circular. An item is not obsolete because another item can do the same function, it becomes obsolete because the function is no longer required. And you forgot THE biggest and greatest thing of PC gaming. While the consoles flame each other to death, I get all the exclusives that they deny each other.
Long live PC gaming, my friends. And long live the consoles, IPads, and cell phones. Still room for all of us
Perhaps next time you might go with "The New Form of PC Gaming" or some such instead of one that will leave us with page after page of flames.
Oh, and I found your reasoning a bit circular. An item is not obsolete because another item can do the same function, it becomes obsolete because the function is no longer required. And you forgot THE biggest and greatest thing of PC gaming. While the consoles flame each other to death, I get all the exclusives that they deny each other
.Long live PC gaming, my friends. And long live the consoles, IPads, and cell phones. Still room for all of us
You just come out and say, "You think you're being level headed, but you're not." That's not really a very strong argument. If we're just going to make completely unqualified yet absolutely definitive statements about the attitude of the person we're disagreeing with we might as well not even talk at all.JonnWood said:
You counterpoint completely missed the point it was countering. It's not downloadability that's the big deal. It's game design. Look at games like Dwarf Fortress or Shores of Hazeron. Both of these are games the current generation of consoles could not handle, and that mainstream devs would never even consider making. They'd probably think of their lack of flashy graphics and wide open player driven gameplay as a joke because most mainstream console devs limit their ambitions to making interactive action movies or simple toys.
I don't really get what you're trying to say about consoles doing things PCs can't out of the box. For one thing the best PCs don't don't come in a box. And of course if you go beyond bare basics PCs have mouses and keyboards and joysticks and wheels and Xbox 360 controllers and PS3 controllers. Consoles have whatever controller is licensed for them, and USB keyboards / mouses. And again that wasn't what I was talking about.
Consoles have 256 megabytes of RAM. PCs usually have upwards of 2048 megabytes of RAM. If Saint's Row 2 was designed for a PC that rare car that you just saw passing you wouldn't have ceased to exist by the time you turned to look at it again. All those thousands of troops in the background there are actual troops you can run up and slaughter, and you can go into that tunnel and out the other side without a load screen.
PCs just have the advantage in hardware power in all ways. You don't like sitting at a desk staring at a small monitor? Plug your PC into your HDTV. Most console games use the lowest possible HD resolution anyway. You want to see the true power of an HDTV you gotta play them on PC.
I'm not a PC gamer, but the idea of having a central hub that can do everything all of those separate devices can do is rather convinient. I would say technology in general is evolving with, not replacing, the PC. We still use the PC for many tasks and I can't see "point and click" motion controls usurping the accurate and reliable mouse and keyboard. Gamepads and touch cannot displace the PC input method either, merely compliment it, as they lack the necessary accuracy for many PC involved tasks. I used to do image-altering with GIMP and I would NEVER be able to do what I did using a touch screen or 360 controller.
What I find most important is that, as others have mentioned previously, the PC remains the most powerful, regardless of its smaller cousins. That is why we need PCs still, because otherwise all of the peripheral devices would be reliant upon one another, something they could not sustain for growth in technology.
As for games, they have simply spread out to a larger, bored audience. There is a growing array of options for all types now available through social networking sites and phones. What hurts PC gaming more, to me as a consumer, is the incline in DRM and invasive maneuvers by companies to generally make PC games less desirable for the troubles brought by their creators.
What I find most important is that, as others have mentioned previously, the PC remains the most powerful, regardless of its smaller cousins. That is why we need PCs still, because otherwise all of the peripheral devices would be reliant upon one another, something they could not sustain for growth in technology.
As for games, they have simply spread out to a larger, bored audience. There is a growing array of options for all types now available through social networking sites and phones. What hurts PC gaming more, to me as a consumer, is the incline in DRM and invasive maneuvers by companies to generally make PC games less desirable for the troubles brought by their creators.
So long as Valve keeps offering Steam sales, I'm probably going to be on the PC for years to come. I've got the rig to run the games even better than a console while taking advantage of all of the features that a PC brings (like the Steam Cloud, instant updates, free online, etc).
I'm sure someday there will be no difference, PCs can easily still become an all-in-one machine. Start designing console controls and wii-motes for pc games and applications, and Sony, Xbox, Nintendo will have to start thinking of making PC's instead.
I can plug my computer into a hugenormous flat screen tv and still call it console gaming if I plug any peripherals to it - and do without a console.
The future is having less devices to do more things than more devices with totally separate functions. More households will see necessity for PCs than consoles, and in that- PC's will still be a first choice for most people.
I can plug my computer into a hugenormous flat screen tv and still call it console gaming if I plug any peripherals to it - and do without a console.
The future is having less devices to do more things than more devices with totally separate functions. More households will see necessity for PCs than consoles, and in that- PC's will still be a first choice for most people.
Probably the right arguement, but the wrong rationale.
PCs had the edge in power for a lot of years. Now A) consoles have caught up and B) we've hit that diminishing returns point where people would rather play angry birds or bejeweled that have another coat of rendering on Mass Effect.
Now the gaming world has a differnt metric: ease of use, and let's face it, PCs aren't the most user friendly thing. I can download to the PS3 (from PSN) without worrying about system specs, codecs, or incompatability issues I get with PC stuff. I also never have to worry about inadvertantly screwing up my OS by accident or have to worry about file paths when saving. Not perfect by any means, and PCs have advantages consoles don't, but it's nice to be able to buy something without having to worry about my video card being out of date or having insuficient RAM.
That's the thing. PC gamers are by nature technophiles. They like upgrading and tinkering their systems while the rest of us just want things to work (and quietly curse them for desgning things on the internet to run on their high end systems and not our low end ones.) The more casual the gaming and tech centres become, the most we see people that want things functional and locked down, thus we get functional and locked down devices.
PCs had the edge in power for a lot of years. Now A) consoles have caught up and B) we've hit that diminishing returns point where people would rather play angry birds or bejeweled that have another coat of rendering on Mass Effect.
Now the gaming world has a differnt metric: ease of use, and let's face it, PCs aren't the most user friendly thing. I can download to the PS3 (from PSN) without worrying about system specs, codecs, or incompatability issues I get with PC stuff. I also never have to worry about inadvertantly screwing up my OS by accident or have to worry about file paths when saving. Not perfect by any means, and PCs have advantages consoles don't, but it's nice to be able to buy something without having to worry about my video card being out of date or having insuficient RAM.
That's the thing. PC gamers are by nature technophiles. They like upgrading and tinkering their systems while the rest of us just want things to work (and quietly curse them for desgning things on the internet to run on their high end systems and not our low end ones.) The more casual the gaming and tech centres become, the most we see people that want things functional and locked down, thus we get functional and locked down devices.
Whilst I obviously didn't read all comments, the majority of "pc defenders" around just reinforce Bob's arguments.
IT DOESN'T MATTER if you love your PC so much. That you think it will always be unmatched, that all other platforms are a joke and you'll never let it go.
The market is moving, and the investors will move with it.
IT DOESN'T MATTER if you love your PC so much. That you think it will always be unmatched, that all other platforms are a joke and you'll never let it go.
The market is moving, and the investors will move with it.
