Why so little PC gamers compared to console gamers?

[The Rogue Wolf]

Mostly its because people find PCs too hard to use. People are seriously fucking stupid when taken as a whole.

Hey, one PC gamer to another, can we drop the "stupid" thing? I've known plenty of otherwise-intelligent people who just couldn't really wrap their heads around the ins and outs of building and upgrading computers. One friend of mine is averse to building PCs because her one attempt at it resulted in a burned-out CPU- and she's employed as an accountant for a major airline and makes about three times as much money as I do.

Remember that there are auto mechanics out there who think you're an absolute moron because you don't know how to tear down and rebuild your car's engine.

 

[VanBasten]

When you compare people who own a console (any console) to people who own a gaming PC that can play games from this generation....

The ratio can be a bit worrying, to say the least.

So why aren't there more PC gamers?

Your premise is wrong.

There are more PC gamers than console gamers.

There are more than 2 million concurrent users on Steam at any given moment, which is I believe more than any console has, and according to Steam hardware survey most of those people have pretty decent rigs.

And then there's a huge number of PC gamers who don't like Steam and avoid it whenever possible.

And then there's nine pirates to each person who actually buys games on the PC.

So really, I fail to see the "worrying ratio" you mention, or the reason why it would be worrying even if it were the case.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

It's simply a matter that console games are cheaper to produce. The hardware on PCs in never consistent so Q&A for PCs is a lot more difficult and time consuming (time = money). While the hardware on consoles is always the same.

 

[s0m3th1ng]

My computer can do anything a console can, and more. I can emulate any console other than the PS3...though there are very few games out for consoles that I would actually buy. All while downloading porn, editing a track, and typing up a report.
PC's are superior in every way besides complexity and price

Only console that is relevant, to me, is a DS...and that's just because I don't want to pirate games on my Incredible.

 

[s0m3th1ng]

It's simply a matter that console games are cheaper to produce. The hardware on PCs in never consistent so Q&A for PCs is a lot more difficult and time consuming (time = money). While the hardware on consoles is always the same.

Development differences between PC and consoles is minimal. The hardware used in Consoles is exactly the same as in PC's. Programming games does not depend on the exact type of hardware . The only differences are an absence of an Operating System and different input devices.

 

[justnotcricket]

Price. It just costs too much for a top line gaming PC, and maintaining it costs even more. Consoles are very low maintenance, and stay relevant for several years.

But for me, it goes beyond that. Even if price were no object, I still could never be a PC gamer, because I hate using a keyboard/mouse, and I hate sitting hunched over my monitor. Now, if you tell me that I can run my PC through my TV and use a USB gamepad, then I'd say...I'm already doing that, it's called a PS3.

More or less this =)

I do appreciate the fact that some games are usually easier to play on a PC, however. I kind of wish sometimes that I had Dragon Age for PC instead of PS3, but the PS3 version works perfectly well, it's just a bit more of a Vulcan nerve pinch to do things sometimes.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

It's simply a matter that console games are cheaper to produce. The hardware on PCs in never consistent so Q&A for PCs is a lot more difficult and time consuming (time = money). While the hardware on consoles is always the same.

Consistent hardware? How how many versions of the PS3 and Xbox 360 are out there with different chipsets and configs, the new 360 doesn't even have a dedicated GPU like the older one its all on a 1 die now. Also when the PS3 first came out it was well over $1000 US to produce while the 360 was around $800.

 

[zombiesinc]

I can understand why parents have a tendency to buy a console (or two) instead of a PC for their child(ren). They're much easier to maintain, and cheaper.

Though, most, if not all, of my friends have been PC gamers, so I guess I was under the impression that more people (my age at least) are PC gamers.

 

[Rblade]

heh I run games on my laptop which I need for all other contact with the outside world and studies and stuff.

thats a real good reason to go for PC if your on a tight budget. you can use a pc for a butload of other usefull things. Games are just a perk

 

[ALuckyChance]

I find the price arguments to be ridiculous, as anybody nowadays can make a decent computer themselves for maybe 300-400 dollars, which isn't too bad. Most of the time, the upgrades to them are made in increments anyway, so the price for new parts mean a bit less once you have the money to afford it.

Honestly, though, comparing PC's to the entire console market seems a bit excessive. Nobody can compete against all those.

The only major argument would just be accessibility, I guess.

 

[Iandiaeufaieubfeuihfi]

Because of price, patches, video cards, updates, viruses, etc.

 

[hawkeye52]

Now, if you tell me that I can run my PC through my TV and use a USB gamepad, then I'd say...I'm already doing that, it's called a PS3.

You can't possibly be implying a PS3 is a whole freakin' computer just with a controller and a TV. If it were, well then it would cost much more wouldn't it?

that and it would be a average to shit pc

 

[Wolfram23]

I find it funny that people are brining up the "PC is more expensive" argument, like they didn't bother to read the OP. He said specifically that he has an older PC, like most people posting right now, but for $115 he got a video card and now can game on it... which, clearly, is much less than the cost of a console. Yes, there would have been an initial investment, maybe $500 let's say, but most people are spending that on a PC anyway, so it's a sunk cost. Like a TV. Or a chair.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

It's simply a matter that console games are cheaper to produce. The hardware on PCs in never consistent so Q&A for PCs is a lot more difficult and time consuming (time = money). While the hardware on consoles is always the same.

Consistent hardware? How how many versions of the PS3 and Xbox 360 are out there with different chipsets and configs, the new 360 doesn't even have a dedicated GPU like the older one its all on a 1 die now. Also when the PS3 first came out it was well over $1000 US to produce while the 360 was around $800.

Ok, relatively consistent then.

It's simply a matter that console games are cheaper to produce. The hardware on PCs in never consistent so Q&A for PCs is a lot more difficult and time consuming (time = money). While the hardware on consoles is always the same.

Development differences between PC and consoles is minimal. The hardware used in Consoles is exactly the same as in PC's. Programming games does not depend on the exact type of hardware . The only differences are an absence of an Operating System and different input devices.

Yes, but the hardware being used by the end user is never consistent and as such Q&A is a much more difficult task.

 

[Kiju]

It would be cheaper to buy a child all three current-gen consoles than it would to buy a computer that can run today's games without much-to-any lag at all, on highest settings.

That's probably the primary reason: computers stay current for about three months, on average. Consoles stay current for three years. In children's case, it's a case of money, and the child doesn't complain when they open the box to see that brand new console...

For example:

Myself, I'm a PC gamer, though. Once I started getting used to the more complex, but rewarding controls of keyboard + mouse, I completely shunned using a controller except for more fast-paced games. Like Assassin's Creed; I'd prefer a controller for that. But hey, guess what? PC's can use controllers too!

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

It's simply a matter that console games are cheaper to produce. The hardware on PCs in never consistent so Q&A for PCs is a lot more difficult and time consuming (time = money). While the hardware on consoles is always the same.

Consistent hardware? How how many versions of the PS3 and Xbox 360 are out there with different chipsets and configs, the new 360 doesn't even have a dedicated GPU like the older one its all on a 1 die now. Also when the PS3 first came out it was well over $1000 US to produce while the 360 was around $800.

Ok, relatively consistent then.

It's simply a matter that console games are cheaper to produce. The hardware on PCs in never consistent so Q&A for PCs is a lot more difficult and time consuming (time = money). While the hardware on consoles is always the same.

Development differences between PC and consoles is minimal. The hardware used in Consoles is exactly the same as in PC's. Programming games does not depend on the exact type of hardware . The only differences are an absence of an Operating System and different input devices.

Yes, but the hardware being used by the end user is never consistent and as such Q&A is a much more difficult task.

No not even relatively consistent at all, whole different chipsets and manufacturers. My PC over the past 6 years has had less hardware changes on it than the first gen 360 to current gen.

 

[Deathkingo]

Console also has a lot more retail. I have yet to see anyplace that solely sells computer games, they are usually tucked into a corner, down the stairs, and past the water fountain.

 

[Pingieking]

Those that you listed the only one that interests me the slightest that I cant really get on consoles is RTS games. I dont give a rats ass about shitty mods, and yes every single one iv seen is shit, doesnt add anything worthwhile, and is a waste of space.

Im a console gamer because they have pretty much everything I want, and the pc has nearly nothing that im interested in. One choice has about 10-15 games, the other 100+ that I like, its a pretty easy decision to make. If you cant understand that people have different tastes in games and gaming devices its you who is pretty fucking stupid.

:O
I'm slightly offended by the bash against mods, my good sir. Mods are not all bad. My estimation is that 10% of mods are really good, which basically doubles the yearly output of PC games.

I game on PC because it can do things that consoles can't. There's not a whole lot that can beat LAN partying Diablo 2 with the graphics hacked to modern resolutions (you can do a lot of hilarious things). I can also play strategy games, and use a mouse for FPS aiming. And boo-hoo to the consoles and the 1080 "HD" experience, compared to my PC which has never run anything close to as low as 1080. The PC basically contains every every entertainment I ever want, from TV to music to games. Best of all, I got my employer to pay for the $2400 rig.
I have a PS3 for the exclusives. But I'm not really liking the low price-content ratio for console games. Fallout 3 + mods can span several hundred hours, but I can't pull that on a PS3.

I just don't think people know how to run a gaming rig. Even a 5 year old PC could probably be overclocked to run games from 2010. And that 5 year old PC that cost $750~1000 can likely do a lot more than a PS3 or X360 can.

 

[jamesworkshop]

The good news is that MMO subscriptions rose from $1.4 billion in 2008 to $1.6 billion in 2009, a respectable increase, especially when you consider the increase of free-to-play and microtransaction titles. This number is expected to hit the $2 billion mark by 2014.