The whole "PCs aren't that expensive compared to consoles" argument

[misfit119]

if consoles could offer:
-Mouse/keyboard/joystick controls, fully customisable with macros
-fully editable and modable game files
-high resolution (1080p+), high framerate (60fps+) and high AA, with Vsync for almost all titles
-no restrictions on installing third party programs and applications
-user run features like dedicated servers

I think the thing is that not everyone cares about stuff like this. Me, I'm actually not fond of mouse/keyboard because I can't use my left hand. At all. I can use my thumb but I have no coordination with it so moving is a real issue in most games. I also dislike modifying most of my games in any real meaningful way since I tend to play them until I'm done and then move on to another one. The only games I see doing stuff like this with are RTS (which are PC specific as far as I'm concerned) or games like The Elder Scrolls series or the Sims. Consoles are just simpler for me. I don't have to wonder why it isn't working or what that error code means and how to fix it. If there's a problem it's generally only one of a few things and that's that.

 

[Treblaine]

Though very few of the third-party titles you mentioned are PC exclusive. This isn't so much a matter of 1st party titles as exclusive ones. Every system has a good amount of exclusives worth owning: almost all of the games you listed are available on consoles as well as the PC. Point being, I could enjoy those on my 360 as well, thus meaning they do not give an advantage to the PC in the slightest. Again, all evens out based on exclusive games.

Nah it doesn't.

You trying to tell me the Xbox 360 version of Bioshock has:
-mouse aim
-no auto aim or aim assist "hand holding"
-fully customisable controls
-anti-aliasing support (PC has through Nvidia/ATI control panel)
-resolution up to and beyond 1080p
-60fps+ frame rate
-full V-sync
-enhanced textures/effect
-playable on a portable device (laptop PC)

Because the PC version does.
Look, comments like you have made are NOT going to go down well as they dovetail with the ideals of major Publishing Company snobs who are stifling PC gaming and really think that console gaming is "good enough" for everyone. No fucking way, if all games fall under the control of console releases then I can guarantee the entire industry will suffer.

Hell, COD4 on PC has dedicated servers and I can't begin to describe how much greater WIN that offers for online multiplayer, it just sucks out all the bullshit and makes for a really amazing online experience;
-stable: no worries about host-quitting
-low and known latency: you can always find a server with <50ms lag
-quick to join and leave
-HUGE player caps of up to 50 players on one map... or just as low as 12.
-clan gaming

Orange Box is utterly abysmal on consoles, same with Supreme Commander and C&C3.

No, you really are best off with PC for third-party games or really almost any time a game gets a PC release and it isn't that hard to get them working. Consoles aren't exactly "plug and play" any more either, so many damn video settings, audio plugs, updates and DLC juggling. Especially if you want to avoid goign the "traditional" route of just using a HDTV but get a cheaper option with say a 1080p computer monitor.

if consoles could offer:
-Mouse/keyboard/joystick controls, fully customisable with macros
-fully editable and modable game files
-high resolution (1080p+), high framerate (60fps+) and high AA, with Vsync for almost all titles
-no restrictions on installing third party programs and applications
-user run features like dedicated servers

I think the thing is that not everyone cares about stuff like this. Me, I'm actually not fond of mouse/keyboard because I can't use my left hand. At all. I can use my thumb but I have no coordination with it so moving is a real issue in most games. I also dislike modifying most of my games in any real meaningful way since I tend to play them until I'm done and then move on to another one. The only games I see doing stuff like this with are RTS (which are PC specific as far as I'm concerned) or games like The Elder Scrolls series or the Sims. Consoles are just simpler for me. I don't have to wonder why it isn't working or what that error code means and how to fix it. If there's a problem it's generally only one of a few things and that's that.

Sorry about your hand, but surely the fully customisable controls aspect of PC games and completely open market of peripherals with standardised data-interface would make it far easier to find a control solution? I mean some mice are virtually covered in buttons, with a d-pad or thumb-stick for the right thumb sometimes.

 

[Laughing Man]

Nah it doesn't.

You trying to tell me the Xbox 360 version of Bioshock has:
-mouse aim
-no auto aim or aim assist "hand holding"
-fully customisable controls
-anti-aliasing support (PC has through Nvidia/ATI control panel)
-resolution up to and beyond 1080p
-60fps+ frame rate
-full V-sync
-enhanced textures/effect
-playable on a portable device (laptop PC)

Because the PC version does.
Look, comments like you have made are NOT going to go down well as they dovetail with the ideals of major Publishing Company snobs who are stifling PC gaming and really think that console gaming is "good enough" for everyone. No fucking way, if all games fall under the control of console releases then I can guarantee the entire industry will suffer.

His points are valid, the PC market get inferior ports of games and these are a direct result of either poorly ported console games GTA4 for example or multi format developed games that are nurfed when they come to their extended PC features. A simple test of this is to name some of the best looking PC games of the last few years, how many of them are multi format and how many of them are PC exclusive? The PC exclusive titles look better for a reason and that is because the developer hasn't had to nurf the game to save on development costs of a multi format release.

Bioshock was an especially poor choice to use for your argument since features such as the need to enable AA through your GPU interface are a great example of a game that has had its graphical power nurfed because it was ported poorly from consoles. The other features such as 60fps and 1080p are redundant arguments as their enjoyment on console and specifically a TV connected to a console do not require the higher res and higher fps values.

Hell, COD4 on PC has dedicated servers and I can't begin to describe how much greater WIN that offers for online multiplayer

Yeah it does but it wouldn't have had had IW had its way, again another great example of a developer who nurfed the PC version because of its console roots. IW would have happily left the PC version heavily consolified leaving it with p2p servers and no console commands however the dedicated servers only appeared after

a). The outcry from the PC community
b). Hacks appeared that allowed folk to run dedicated servers and reenable the console commands.

-stable: no worries about host-quitting
-low and known latency: you can always find a server with <50ms lag
-quick to join and leave
-HUGE player caps of up to 50 players on one map... or just as low as 12.
-clan gaming

The points are valid but had IW had their way you would have had none of those things they were forced down that route by elements out with their control.

Orange Box is utterly abysmal on consoles

Another poor example Orange box was developed for PC and then later converted to the console, the original HL was the same and the result was the same.

 

[Wolfram23]

Well 9 pages in and people are really deviating from the actual topic at hand, reducing it more and more to PC vs Console when it's really a PC and console thread. Ah well, c'est la vie.

Just an update on the PC, I finally bought it and almost have it ready to fire up. It ended up costing a little bit more, about $1300 because I ended up buying a case and CPU cooler as well.

Antec 900 II gaming case
i5 750 CPU (2.66ghz quad core)
Zalman Extreme CPU heat sink
MSI P55GD65 motherboard
2x2GB Patriot Viper II RAM
Sapphire Radeon 5850 GPU
Corsair 750TX PSU
Wireless Logitech keyboard and laser mouse

 

[Paradoxical]

Summary of what I have found;

It depends on how "hardcore" you play, how many games you buy, how often you play, things like that. If you like really high-end graphics (read: Crysis on max settings(Not Crysis: Warhead as this is tweaked to lower processor strain >_>)) then the PC will probably come out as more expensive. If you don't mind some more mediocre graphics and don't buy too many games then the console will definitely come out cheaper, but if you don't mind average graphics (like me) and you play a lot of games then the PC will probably come out cheaper overall if you build it yourself as PC games tend to be cheaper by at least a few dollars/pounds/euros/pesos/whatever other currency your contry happens to be using. Also if you can buy some second-hand but still in good condition parts then you can save even more on the PC cost. If you tend to not maintain things properly, then the PC will probably also cost you less as a single part has to be replaced and you might even find that you can upgrade for ajust a little extra; e.g. my hard-drive suffered from chronic self-corruptions, so I got a new one, twice the size for just $20 extra. If something gives up on a console then you may have to replace the entire thing or void your warranty by going inside to fix it.

Off-Topic Edit:

i5 750 CPU (2.66ghz quad core)

I have a 2.81GHz Dual core that was bought for less than NZ$100 (which is the equivalent of about US$70) second hand, and after tons and tons of use I haven't had the slightest problem with it. I could've got a 3.2GHz for about NZ$110.

 

[Randomvirus]

Where I'd stand on this, would be that to me it feels like PC's have like a 2 year life on them.

If it's not my video card / processor / ram that's getting outdated and needs upgrading, then it's my harddrive, ram, or something else that fails and needs me to upgrade / completely rebuild my system.

So, about every 2 years, I'm spending about $700-$1000 bucks on a new PC.

But then again, I'm on my 4th Xbox 360 in as many years. And consoles have peripherals. $60 dollar wireless controllers (albeit they're cheaper now), and I think I have to replace a controller once a year (something fails in it.)

Honestly, I when I think about it, they're both probably costing about the same. Which is too much.

Man, maybe I should just give up gaming and buy a yearly gym membership (and use it). $30 bucks a month and rock hard abs for pleasing my lady?

Hmm...

 

[Laughing Man]

I like to use a very simple challenge to prove the PC vs Console price argument. The challenge is very simple. Build a PC that can run the game Dirt 2 based on the minimum specs posted for the game by the developers

Now here's the minimum PC specs

- Microsoft Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7
- Intel Pentium 4 3.0Ghz
- AMD Athlon 64 3400+
- 1GB (2Gb for Windows Vista)
- 10GB HD Space
- ATI Radeon X1500
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800
- Motherboard
- Case
- Power Supply
- DVD Drive

Now all you have to do is build a PC with at least those parts for less than the cost of an XBox 360.

Now for the sake of simplicity we will firstly ignore all peripheral expenses, so for PC that's keyboard mouse and monitor and for the console the tv. Second the prices have to be for new items that's a brand new console and a brand new pc parts.

Now here's the price, a brand new XBox 360 from Amazon.co.uk can be purchased for £124.73 now go ahead and build your PC for less than that price.

 

[Thaius]

Though very few of the third-party titles you mentioned are PC exclusive. This isn't so much a matter of 1st party titles as exclusive ones. Every system has a good amount of exclusives worth owning: almost all of the games you listed are available on consoles as well as the PC. Point being, I could enjoy those on my 360 as well, thus meaning they do not give an advantage to the PC in the slightest. Again, all evens out based on exclusive games.

Nah it doesn't.

You trying to tell me the Xbox 360 version of Bioshock has:

First of all, no I'm not. I'm not saying the systems are the same, simply that, in terms of games, it evens out when it comes to the specific issue of exclusive games. But I'll humor you.

-mouse aim
-no auto aim or aim assist "hand holding"

Unlike what so many PC elitists say, mouse aim is a preference, not an absolutely better option. And the option to turn aim-assist off has been in pretty much every console shooter ever made since... probably Halo, maybe before.

-fully customisable controls

It's becoming a standard, but usually is in the form of multiple control scheme options, which is perfectly fine considering the smaller amount of buttons on a controller as compared to a keyboard.

-anti-aliasing support (PC has through Nvidia/ATI control panel)
-resolution up to and beyond 1080p

When graphics get to the point where 1080p doesn't reveal all the little imperfections, I'll consider higher resolutions a plus. And anti-aliasing really isn't a big deal: I hardly play my older, lower-resolution games for their graphics.

-60fps+ frame rate

Umm... yes, actually. What console game this generation hasn't?

-full V-sync
-enhanced textures/effect

I'll give you the full v-sync, but that's not to say it's noticeable on consoles anyway. And enhanced textures/effect, like so much you have mentioned, goes back to the original topic of this article: it's really only a positive for someone who can afford a good enough computer.

-playable on a portable device (laptop PC)

I admit it would be nice, but unless you have a really freaking expensive laptop, half of the things you mentioned would be canceled out by this one.

I'm not saying consoles should replace PCs, not at all. I'm not even saying they're better. I'm simply trying to say that the PC, especially when judged on a basis of exclusive games, is not somehow an inherently better option than consoles: to think so is simply arrogant.

 

[Treblaine]

Though very few of the third-party titles you mentioned are PC exclusive. This isn't so much a matter of 1st party titles as exclusive ones. Every system has a good amount of exclusives worth owning: almost all of the games you listed are available on consoles as well as the PC. Point being, I could enjoy those on my 360 as well, thus meaning they do not give an advantage to the PC in the slightest. Again, all evens out based on exclusive games.

Nah it doesn't.

You trying to tell me the Xbox 360 version of Bioshock has:

First of all, no I'm not. I'm not saying the systems are the same, simply that, in terms of games, it evens out when it comes to the specific issue of exclusive games. But I'll humor you.

-mouse aim
-no auto aim or aim assist "hand holding"

Unlike what so many PC elitists say, mouse aim is a preference, not an absolutely better option. And the option to turn aim-assist off has been in pretty much every console shooter ever made since... probably Halo, maybe before.

-fully customisable controls

It's becoming a standard, but usually is in the form of multiple control scheme options, which is perfectly fine considering the smaller amount of buttons on a controller as compared to a keyboard.

-anti-aliasing support (PC has through Nvidia/ATI control panel)
-resolution up to and beyond 1080p

When graphics get to the point where 1080p doesn't reveal all the little imperfections, I'll consider higher resolutions a plus. And anti-aliasing really isn't a big deal: I hardly play my older, lower-resolution games for their graphics.

-60fps+ frame rate

Umm... yes, actually. What console game this generation hasn't?

-full V-sync
-enhanced textures/effect

I'll give you the full v-sync, but that's not to say it's noticeable on consoles anyway. And enhanced textures/effect, like so much you have mentioned, goes back to the original topic of this article: it's really only a positive for someone who can afford a good enough computer.

-playable on a portable device (laptop PC)

I admit it would be nice, but unless you have a really freaking expensive laptop, half of the things you mentioned would be canceled out by this one.

I'm not saying consoles should replace PCs, not at all. I'm not even saying they're better. I'm simply trying to say that the PC, especially when judged on a basis of exclusive games, is not somehow an inherently better option than consoles: to think so is simply arrogant.

Mouse aim isn't just a preference, it is a necessity for a given difficulty. If you want to keep the enemy challenge the same with gamepad controls then you NEED to implement aim-assist or the majority of the audience will hate it. Aim assist goes far beyond just a bit of stickyness of the crosshairs on the target.

Very few games ACTUALLY allow aim-assist to be switched off 100% and the point is you NEED it to compensate for how a gamepad's thumstick is so poor at the job of aiming, the computer either needs to help you a lot or the enemy difficulty needs to be severely scaled down, usually both.

Bullshit on the ubiquity of fully customisable controls, I know Resistance 2 does it... that is about it. I do NOT accept that 3 or 4 preset layouts are in any way adequate number of configurations considering the number of permutations of 12 buttons and how you can't press any combination at any time (no face buttons while looking).

"When graphics get to the point where 1080p doesn't reveal all the little imperfections, I'll consider higher resolutions a plus."

I get the impression from this that you think most console games are in 1080p? Hell No, most are only 720p, less than half the resolution of 1080p and a significant proportion have even lower resolution of 576p to 640p, including Bioshock, COD2-4-MW2 and Halo 3. 1080p resolution DOES add a lot and the better the overall graphics fidelity the more jarring aliasing can appear.

Oh and by the way, the over-whelming majority of console games run at only 30 frames per second and usually drop to 25fps in active scenes, for the minority of games that are "60fps" they really only aim for that like God of War 3 or Modern Warfare 2 stutter to a huge extend and are only really 60fps in quiet scenes, when the action picks up it drops down to 45-50 fps.


Glad you see the benefit of such basic things like full V-sync but we are going in circles again if you just say "ahh but no one can afford it" as for the past 9 pages, dozens of people have been making really in depth arguments for how you DON'T need a ridiculously expensive machine to get those enhanced textures. Hell most desktop computers can run rings around console performance with a budget graphics card like Radeon 4670 or GTS 240, costs around $80 and slots right into a spare PCI socket, no power cables needed, no special configuration, practically plug and play.

On the laptop gaming front, yes a tidy majority of PC games released this year cannot be played on an affordable laptop bought this year. But if the proposed $1000 budget was spent on a laptop then it would be able to play the latest games, and be a great home media player, desktop replacement work computer, and screen all in a relatively portable package... I think ALL THAT is worth $1000 and offers WAY more than what any console is capable of.