If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Games Industry International)   Sorry, console fanboys, but no next-gen console will ever out compete a high-end PC again. Truth to the left; Denial to the right   (gamesindustry.biz) divider line 250
    More: Obvious, system console, Crytek, non-disclosure agreement, denials, console wars, Eurogamer  
•       •       •

6469 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Feb 2013 at 9:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



250 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-23 04:54:36 PM  
Yea, but PC's are a smaller, limited market. I dropped out about 10 years ago, and there were games then that took forever to come out on PC that had been out for a year or more on consoles. Superior hardware does you no good if they don't make games for it.
 
2013-02-23 04:55:26 PM  
Next-gen consoles pretty much ARE PCs, you silly pedants.
 
2013-02-23 04:55:47 PM  
fc03.deviantart.net
 
2013-02-23 05:29:43 PM  
"Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.
 
2013-02-23 05:39:38 PM  
Given the price difference between "high end PCs" and consoles, I don't know why that shouldn't be the case.


/JUST got my first PC that could qualify as high..ish.. end.  It's lovely, but the price tag was not.
 
2013-02-23 05:42:46 PM  

Steve Zodiac: Yea, but PC's are a smaller, limited market. I dropped out about 10 years ago, and there were games then that took forever to come out on PC that had been out for a year or more on consoles. Superior hardware does you no good if they don't make games for it.


They make games for it.  Lots of them.  But consoles are quite a lot cheaper and do a pretty good job of being perfectly fun.
 
2013-02-23 06:38:51 PM  
game consoles are for kids. My awesome PC does everything, and gaming too.
 
2013-02-23 06:43:55 PM  
Hey look, it's this thread again!

As inevitable as the dawn, as inexorable as the tides.

There is no stopping it.

Roll on.
 
2013-02-23 07:05:37 PM  
I don't think anyone who buys a console wants it to out-perform a PC. They just want a machine they can play games on without a whole lot of hassle.
 
2013-02-23 07:07:09 PM  

Shostie: I don't think anyone who buys a console wants it to out-perform a PC. They just want a machine they can play games on without a whole lot of hassle.


This.  I don't want to buy a game, get it home, and discover my computer's video card is out of date after I've opened the box, thus making it impossible for me to return the software.
 
2013-02-23 07:13:48 PM  
I'll say what I said last time we did this: PC markets will never die because games like Crusader Kings will never work on consoles, and there's plenty of market for grand strategy games.

Relatively Obscure: JUST got my first PC that could qualify as high..ish.. end. It's lovely, but the price tag was not.


Did you buy it assembled or build it yourself?  I have an 8GB RAM system, 1GB GeForce 460 SE card, and a 6 core, 3.2GB processor.  Admittedly the RAM is a bit slower, I think it's 1333 RAM, but I still only spent 1K on all that.
 
2013-02-23 07:15:13 PM  
Current gen consoles are pretty damned good, and next gen will be better, but I like my MSI laptop with it's guts stuffed full of gaming hardware.

Here's the crazy... I was just contemplating getting a second 57" TV and mounting on the other wall so we could play on two consoles at once. I've been making stupid amounts of money.
 
2013-02-23 07:18:10 PM  
"We used Moore's Law," Yerli said. "If you predict how hardware evolves at the current speed of evolution, and then take consumer pricing evolution, already two years ago you could see, whatever launches in 2013 or 2014 or 2015, will never beat a PC again."

Moore's Law is just a observation of the exponential growth in the number transistors in a IC historically; it says nothing about nothing the future, it's not a physical law.
 
2013-02-23 07:31:46 PM  
I'd rather wait 10 minutes for a game to install on my Playstation then spend an hour tracking down drivers. At least I can do it unattended and do something productive while I wait, like whack off or something.
 
2013-02-23 07:37:46 PM  
The problem being price for one show me a $299 PC that can run a game that looks as good as the PS3 version.  And two, developers know exact hardware they are developing for 100% of the time, they can optimize coding.

Besides PC games aren't really fun or innovative most of the time.  OOHHH ANOTHER FPS!!! YEAH!! *yawn*
 
2013-02-23 07:45:52 PM  
My graphics card alone cost more than my 360. If the whole PC didn't out-perform the console I'd be hard pressed to spend that kind of money.
That being said. If they'd let me use mouse+keyboard on a console game I'd still switch in a heartbeat. My hate for console controllers is pretty much what keeps me in the PC sphere.
 
2013-02-23 07:49:42 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Given the price difference between "high end PCs" and consoles, I don't know why that shouldn't be the case.


/JUST got my first PC that could qualify as high..ish.. end.  It's lovely, but the price tag was not.


I've bought video cards that cost more than an entire console. I gave up on the PC arms race.

I do have a pretty powerful laptop, but with most PC games going either the MMO route or sort of Diablo III style online deal, the days I could fire it up anywhere, even deployed to a third-world country, and use it as a completely self-contained gaming* unit are numbered.

*Legally
 
2013-02-23 07:50:19 PM  
Anybody that uses fanboy or the even dumber alternate spelling deserves an ass whipping in a gravel parking lot
 
2013-02-23 07:55:32 PM  

GAT_00: Did you buy it assembled or build it yourself? I have an 8GB RAM system, 1GB GeForce 460 SE card, and a 6 core, 3.2GB processor. Admittedly the RAM is a bit slower, I think it's 1333 RAM, but I still only spent 1K on all that.


I was going to assemble it myself originally (I can and have, but.. I can't say I specifically LIKE to), but I decided against it when I found a model with a price point maybe 100 bucks over what parts cost without really hunting or waiting for deals, with a better wiring job than my lazy ass would ever manage and a three year warranty/lifetime support (haven't used it, but I've heard positive things about it).  Very similar to what I was planning to build anyway; the case is different but fine, but it does sadly lack an SSD I'll have to throw in myself.  So, I went the easy route.  It's not super high-end and the price was okay for what it was (especially after a couple of discounts from them and $150 off from a deal from my CC company).  Just still notably more expensive than the budget systems I've owned previously.
 
2013-02-23 07:58:45 PM  
Oh, and it came with a handful of new game downloads for games I might have been inclined to try anyway, so there's that too.

/'Course, when I got it, I immediately fired up an old DOS game, because I apparently like to do these sorts of things to myself.
 
2013-02-23 08:00:16 PM  

clancifer: "Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.


No kidding.  It's almost as if they don't understand the point of consoles.
 
2013-02-23 08:08:20 PM  
Is this like a thing people argue about?
 
2013-02-23 08:09:15 PM  

coco ebert: Is this like a thing people argue about?


Well what would you suggest instead?
 
2013-02-23 08:10:49 PM  
Bought a HP high-end machine a couple years ago. If you know anything about HPs, you know they are severely underpowered - damn thing came with a 150W p/s...I swapped that out with a nice Corsair, bought a decent video nVidia, boosted the RAM to 16GB and I'm laughing.

Haven't had a console since the 1980s. There's just no point.
 
2013-02-23 08:11:32 PM  

dillenger69: My graphics card alone cost more than my 360. If the whole PC didn't out-perform the console I'd be hard pressed to spend that kind of money.
That being said. If they'd let me use mouse+keyboard on a console game I'd still switch in a heartbeat. My hate for console controllers is pretty much what keeps me in the PC sphere.


I had a converter that let you use a mouse and keyboard for the xBox 360 when it first came out.  It doesn't help.  Since console programmers know they are programming for consoles, there's no built in acceleration for "looking."  With a mouse you can move it quickly and stop once you're looking where you want, but with a console controller it just pans at the same speed.

My general rule of thumb is FPS and flight sims for the PC, and racing, sports, and 3rd person shooters for the xBox.  Works out pretty well.

I'm never buying another Sony product for the rest of my life because I'm still pissed off about the "memory stick."  I'll never forgive you, Sony.
 
2013-02-23 08:22:51 PM  

gopher321: damn thing came with a 150W p/s


What the hell can you power with a 150W power supply?  I've got 1100W in mine.
 
2013-02-23 08:25:13 PM  
The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.

With the PC, publishers notoriously lie about the minimum specs needed to run a game just to get you to buy it. So you guy your top of the line gaming PC and it runs all the games that came out the month you bought your PC. Then six months down the line your games download a patch to fix bugs and improve content and now your machine struggles a bit to keep up with the demands. Then another six months and you can completely forget about buying any current games because your ancient 1 year old video card is ridiculously underpowered and obsolete everything in your PC is woefully inadequate for running current games and needs to be upgraded. Repeat every year. And then between your software updates and hardware updates suddenly the old games you used to love no longer work on your machine because the new version of Direct X or some other driver is no longer backwards compatible with the old stuff.

I have a Gamecube. It still runs every Gamecube game. 10 years from now it will still run every Gamecube game. I have an XBox 360. It runs every Xbox 360 game. 10 years from now it will still run every Xbox game. My windows 7 PC won`t run current generation games worth crap because it`s a little over a year old and now considered obsolete. It also won`t run awesome old games like Interstate `76 because Direct X updates and the operating system are not backwards compatible enough to run the game.
 
2013-02-23 08:29:09 PM  

GAT_00: What the hell can you power with a 150W power supply? I've got 1100W in mine.


150W is BEYOND low for anything pretending to be "high end," but having 1100W isn't exactly the same as needing or benefiting from it.
 
2013-02-23 08:35:19 PM  

Ghastly: The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.

With the PC, publishers notoriously lie about the minimum specs needed to run a game just to get you to buy it. So you guy your top of the line gaming PC and it runs all the games that came out the month you bought your PC. Then six months down the line your games download a patch to fix bugs and improve content and now your machine struggles a bit to keep up with the demands. Then another six months and you can completely forget about buying any current games because your ancient 1 year old video card is ridiculously underpowered and obsolete everything in your PC is woefully inadequate for running current games and needs to be upgraded. Repeat every year. And then between your software updates and hardware updates suddenly the old games you used to love no longer work on your machine because the new version of Direct X or some other driver is no longer backwards compatible with the old stuff.

I have a Gamecube. It still runs every Gamecube game. 10 years from now it will still run every Gamecube game. I have an XBox 360. It runs every Xbox 360 game. 10 years from now it will still run every Xbox game. My windows 7 PC won`t run current generation games worth crap because it`s a little over a year old and now considered obsolete. It also won`t run awesome old games like Interstate `76 because Direct X updates and the operating system are not backwards compatible enough to run the game.


You can usually get 3 or more years out of a PC unless you went really cheap when you bought it.

Also, if you don't want to build a virtual machine to run old games on old OSes, Good Old Games has your back:   http://www.gog.com/gamecard/interstate76   All they do is port old games to new OSes.
 
2013-02-23 08:38:03 PM  

Lsherm: Ghastly: The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.

With the PC, publishers notoriously lie about the minimum specs needed to run a game just to get you to buy it. So you guy your top of the line gaming PC and it runs all the games that came out the month you bought your PC. Then six months down the line your games download a patch to fix bugs and improve content and now your machine struggles a bit to keep up with the demands. Then another six months and you can completely forget about buying any current games because your ancient 1 year old video card is ridiculously underpowered and obsolete everything in your PC is woefully inadequate for running current games and needs to be upgraded. Repeat every year. And then between your software updates and hardware updates suddenly the old games you used to love no longer work on your machine because the new version of Direct X or some other driver is no longer backwards compatible with the old stuff.

I have a Gamecube. It still runs every Gamecube game. 10 years from now it will still run every Gamecube game. I have an XBox 360. It runs every Xbox 360 game. 10 years from now it will still run every Xbox game. My windows 7 PC won`t run current generation games worth crap because it`s a little over a year old and now considered obsolete. It also won`t run awesome old games like Interstate `76 because Direct X updates and the operating system are not backwards compatible enough to run the game.

You can usually get 3 or more years out of a PC unless you went really cheap when you bought it.

Also, if you don't want to build a virtual machine to run old games on old OSes, Good Old Games has your back:   http://www.gog.com/gamecard/interstate76   All they do is port old games to new OSes.


From what I heard the GOG version of Interstate 76 doesn`t run on Windows 7 at all and is very hit and miss on the other post 98 OSs they`ve tried to upgrade it for.
 
2013-02-23 08:40:28 PM  

Ghastly: The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.

With the PC, publishers notoriously lie about the minimum specs needed to run a game just to get you to buy it. So you guy your top of the line gaming PC and it runs all the games that came out the month you bought your PC. Then six months down the line your games download a patch to fix bugs and improve content and now your machine struggles a bit to keep up with the demands. Then another six months and you can completely forget about buying any current games because your ancient 1 year old video card is ridiculously underpowered and obsolete everything in your PC is woefully inadequate for running current games and needs to be upgraded. Repeat every year. And then between your software updates and hardware updates suddenly the old games you used to love no longer work on your machine because the new version of Direct X or some other driver is no longer backwards compatible with the old stuff.

I have a Gamecube. It still runs every Gamecube game. 10 years from now it will still run every Gamecube game. I have an XBox 360. It runs every Xbox 360 game. 10 years from now it will still run every Xbox game. My windows 7 PC won`t run current generation games worth crap because it`s a little over a year old and now considered obsolete. It also won`t run awesome old games like Interstate `76 because Direct X updates and the operating system are not backwards compatible enough to run the game.


I don't have THAT much of a problem with my PCs, but yeah I can understand that.  Mostly, I just absolutely cannot shop for PCs again for a while, to avoid the feeling of seeing better parts for the same price you JUST paid a few weeks ago.
 
2013-02-23 08:45:31 PM  

Ghastly: The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.

With the PC, publishers notoriously lie about the minimum specs needed to run a game just to get you to buy it. So you guy your top of the line gaming PC and it runs all the games that came out the month you bought your PC. Then six months down the line your games download a patch to fix bugs and improve content and now your machine struggles a bit to keep up with the demands. Then another six months and you can completely forget about buying any current games because your ancient 1 year old video card is ridiculously underpowered and obsolete everything in your PC is woefully inadequate for running current games and needs to be upgraded. Repeat every year.


Not true- My PC i put together in 09. It has a Core I 7 processor and 12 GB ram and runs everything I can throw at it. I've upgraded the video card once- try doing that on your console. I have no doubt this machine will continue to play any game i want  for the next 4 years at least.

Consoles are closed systems that have built in obsolescence. Any decent PC can be upgrade many times to support higher demands.
 
2013-02-23 08:50:18 PM  

Dinki: Consoles are closed systems that have built in obsolescence. Any decent PC can be upgrade many times to support higher demands.


And that means what to the average non-technical user?
 
2013-02-23 08:57:39 PM  

Mentat: Dinki: Consoles are closed systems that have built in obsolescence. Any decent PC can be upgrade many times to support higher demands.

And that means what to the average non-technical user?


Consoles don't need to be upgraded, that's the point. Technical user or non technical it doesn't matter. You buy your console it runs your games. You buy your PC and you have to play the upgrade game because PCs tend to run unoptimized code that require you to have the latest specs in order to play anything.
 
2013-02-23 09:03:10 PM  
Lets put it this way, build a PC with the same RAW processing specs as a PS4

Compare price.  Yeah, console, make a whole lot of sense with a way bigger payoff - chances are you already own decent PC.

Besides How many other than game types besides FPS/MMORPG or strategy are really fun without a joystick? Yeah playing Arcade/driving/console type games suck with a keyboard.

Yeah sure you can DO way more with a PC but strictly from a GAMERS (yeah you're really a gamer if you only own a PC) it makes wayyy more sense.
 
2013-02-23 09:13:42 PM  
Well, I would hope something I blew 2 or 3 grand on would perform better than something I paid $400 for. Then again, I'm one of those insane gamers who enjoys games on all different types of formats.
 
2013-02-23 09:17:10 PM  

Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: What the hell can you power with a 150W power supply? I've got 1100W in mine.

150W is BEYOND low for anything pretending to be "high end," but having 1100W isn't exactly the same as needing or benefiting from it.


I think I had gotten the extra power in case it was needed for mods I've never made.  That, or it was basically the same cost as a smaller power supply that couldn't quite do everything, I can't remember.
 
2013-02-23 09:17:51 PM  
Oh I really should have proof-read that post.  Eh, I'll pick out the most important thing (yeah you're not really a gamer if you only own a PC)
 
2013-02-23 09:35:43 PM  
I gave up pc gaming once I hooked the xbox up to a nice big screen tv and played it kicked back in a nice comfortable chair.

nows theres nothing on my lap except your mom.
 
2013-02-23 09:39:05 PM  
PCs are for sad geeks who have no life.

Game consoles are for those who want to entertain themselves.

I once tried using a PC - it was an absolute nightmare! (those who create these various versions don't exactly make them for the novice; they wrongly assume EVERYONE is a Geek) And using it was WORSE!!! Besides, I've ALWAYS used XBox, and it's too late to teach this old dog new tricks. And when PCs become as easy to use as XBox, games are as easy to load into PC as it is for XBox, and there's Halo 2 ported to PC (or better still, XBox games are compatible with PC), THEN I'll use it And You PC-ers DARE to accuse Bill Gates of being the 'Antichrist'?! At least he makes his game consoles EASY to buy & use!!!

So, until then, I say:

GET THEE BEHIND ME, PC-SATAN!!!
 
2013-02-23 09:41:32 PM  
i50.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-23 09:43:26 PM  

dillenger69: If they'd let me use mouse+keyboard on a console game I'd still switch in a heartbeat. My hate for console controllers is pretty much what keeps me in the PC sphere.


This right here. Absolutely cannot play any FPS with a console controller.
 
2013-02-23 09:43:32 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-23 09:45:19 PM  

Mr. Fuzzypaws: I'd rather wait 10 minutes for a game to install on my Playstation then spend an hour tracking down drivers. At least I can do it unattended and do something productive while I wait, like whack off or something.


You can't whack off while installing drivers? Just goes to show: consoles are for amateurs. PCs are for pros, bros.
 
2013-02-23 09:48:42 PM  
So that guy obviously doesn't speak English, but I think he was saying that cheap machines are lower power than expensive ones.
 
2013-02-23 09:49:34 PM  

Ghastly: Lsherm: Ghastly: The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.

With the PC, publishers notoriously lie about the minimum specs needed to run a game just to get you to buy it. So you guy your top of the line gaming PC and it runs all the games that came out the month you bought your PC. Then six months down the line your games download a patch to fix bugs and improve content and now your machine struggles a bit to keep up with the demands. Then another six months and you can completely forget about buying any current games because your ancient 1 year old video card is ridiculously underpowered and obsolete everything in your PC is woefully inadequate for running current games and needs to be upgraded. Repeat every year. And then between your software updates and hardware updates suddenly the old games you used to love no longer work on your machine because the new version of Direct X or some other driver is no longer backwards compatible with the old stuff.

I have a Gamecube. It still runs every Gamecube game. 10 years from now it will still run every Gamecube game. I have an XBox 360. It runs every Xbox 360 game. 10 years from now it will still run every Xbox game. My windows 7 PC won`t run current generation games worth crap because it`s a little over a year old and now considered obsolete. It also won`t run awesome old games like Interstate `76 because Direct X updates and the operating system are not backwards compatible enough to run the game.

You can usually get 3 or more years out of a PC unless you went really cheap when you bought it.

Also, if you don't want to build a virtual machine to run old games on old OSes, Good Old Games has your back:   http://www.gog.com/gamecard/interstate76   All they do is port old games to new OSes.

From what I heard the GOG version of Interstate 76 doesn`t run on Windows 7 at all and is very hit and miss o ...


I can't speak to Interstate 76, but I downloaded Flat Out from them and it runs fine on Windows 8 and Windows 7.    Hell, I even got the original Homeworld to run on my Windows 8 box by setting compatability mode to Windows 98, and that was with the original disc.
 
2013-02-23 09:50:37 PM  

jake_lex: Shostie: I don't think anyone who buys a console wants it to out-perform a PC. They just want a machine they can play games on without a whole lot of hassle.

This.  I don't want to buy a game, get it home, and discover my computer's video card is out of date after I've opened the box, thus making it impossible for me to return the software.




If your video card is more than six months old, it's out of date. But how old would it have to be to not run a new release at all? Pretty goddamned old for the most part. PC games are set up to run on a spectrum of hardware, from barely running on the minimum spec, to smooth as butter with all of the pretty turned on at the bleeding edge. Just read the box, and you'll generally be fine. And isn't the occasional hardware upgrade part of the fun?
 
2013-02-23 09:51:12 PM  
one word: modding
 
2013-02-23 09:53:03 PM  
fusillade762: This right here. Absolutely cannot play any FPS with a console controller.

I can play a FPS on anything.

Likewise, I played racing games on a PC with a mouse and keyboard.

// as a joke once, I played a level in halo using a Guitar Hero guitar ... I would never do that in multiplayer though ... unless I was playing against other people who were using Guitars.
 
2013-02-23 09:53:19 PM  
Am I the only person who uses both?

Consoles are fine for the vast majority of games but there are certain types of games that you really need a PC to get the most out of - I think if I tried to play a Civ game with a PS3 controller I would lose my mind. Also some games just feel right on a PC platform (most recent example I can think of is XCom:Enemy Unknown). PS3 demo left me kinda meh but playing the PC version just felt like I was home
 
kab
2013-02-23 09:53:51 PM  
That article gets a big "well, no shiat".

Since most games are dev'ed for consoles these days, you now have a scenario where PC hardware is way way ahead of any limitations that might be imposed on it by software.  (which is why you see most video card shootouts using 3 screen setups)

This is actually a pretty good thing for the PC gamer, as it has inevitably brought the price down on what is considered a capable rig.

But this is FARK, home of the 'tablets r teh future' gamer, who still believes that installing games on a PC requires hours of research, sweat and labor.
 
2013-02-23 09:54:46 PM  
Yeah PCs are more expensive, more complicated to run, become obsolete much faster (well, need upgrading anyway). So? They also produce better game results, have an enormously better control system and as a bonus you get a farking good pc (good luck doing 3d work, photoshopping or actual work on a console)

Things have a place. I got my PS3 and it is good for what it is good for, but better than my PC? never not ever.
 
kab
2013-02-23 09:55:11 PM  

Repo Man: If your video card is more than six months old, it's out of date.


This statement hasn't been relevant in years.
 
2013-02-23 09:57:22 PM  

Repo Man: jake_lex: Shostie: I don't think anyone who buys a console wants it to out-perform a PC. They just want a machine they can play games on without a whole lot of hassle.

This.  I don't want to buy a game, get it home, and discover my computer's video card is out of date after I've opened the box, thus making it impossible for me to return the software.

If your video card is more than six months old, it's out of date. But how old would it have to be to not run a new release at all? Pretty goddamned old for the most part. PC games are set up to run on a spectrum of hardware, from barely running on the minimum spec, to smooth as butter with all of the pretty turned on at the bleeding edge. Just read the box, and you'll generally be fine. And isn't the occasional hardware upgrade part of the fun?


I'm running two ATI 5870s that are both three years old, and they don't have an issue with newer games.  Video cards are so insanely powerful these days that you don't need to upgrade them once a year like you used to.
 
2013-02-23 09:58:38 PM  
gaspode: Yeah PCs are more expensive, more complicated to run, become obsolete much faster (well, need upgrading anyway). So? They also produce better game results, have an enormously better control system and as a bonus you get a farking good pc

If I were to build another gaming box, it would be separate from my workstation.

// glorious *.* gaming master race (who unfortunately doesn't have as much time for gaming as he used to)
 
2013-02-23 09:59:47 PM  
I would just like to remind everyone that PC Gaming Master Race™ became a misnomer when Steam opened the device to just about everyone and the most popular games became things like Defense of the Ancients, Team Fortress 2, World of Warcraft, League of Legends, Minecraft, and so forth.  That is all.
 
2013-02-23 10:01:07 PM  
I just built a very nice gaming PC during the black Friday season for about $1000, and it's already as good or better than the next gen consoles, if the rumor mill is right about their specs. It should last at least 5 years without upgrading any components, and when I do it'll probably only be $200 or so for a new video card.

The best part about it is that all the games I've bought have been on a Steam sale, and the graphics card came with three free games (all of which I wanted) so I've saved about $150 in game prices over the console equivalent. Over the course of 5 years I'm certain that the total cost of ownership will be much lower for the PC than it will for the console.

Game Price - PC vs 360 at time of purchase
Skyrim - $30 vs $60
Borderlands 2 - $30 vs $60
Deus Ex Human Revolution - $5 vs $30
Far Cry 3 - Free vs$ 60
Hitman Absolution - Free vs $60
Sleeping Dogs - Free vs $50
Extra spent on video card to get games bundle - $100
Total: $165 vs $320

I also have access to a whole bundle of really cheap PC games that are simply fantastic, that you either couldn't or wouldn't play on a console. Not all of the following times are since last November.

Game - Price - Time on Steam
Team Fortress 2 - Free - 77hrs
Natural Selection 2 - $15 - 61hrs
Red Orchestra 2 - $10 - 20hrs
DCS A10-C - $20 - not available
Torchlight II - $20 - 17hrs
Terraria - $3 - 151hrs (secret shame)
SpaceChem - $5 - 7hrs
FTL - $5 - 15hrs
SPAZ - $5 - 36hrs
STALKER franchise - $30 - 60hrs
Total - $113 - 426hrs - $0.27 per hour

Even if you played 100 hours of multiplayer per AAA console game you got, you'd still only get about $0.50 per hour at $60 per AAA console game.
 
2013-02-23 10:03:41 PM  

coco ebert: Is this like a thing people argue about?


Frat boys get really pissy when you point out that their consoles suck.

"B-b-b-but MADDEN!!!"
 
2013-02-23 10:05:41 PM  

kab: Repo Man: If your video card is more than six months old, it's out of date.

This statement hasn't been relevant in years.




As I said out of date doesn't mean it won't run most games just fine. It does mean that something newer and better has been released. You don't have to get it, just as no one has to run the most up to the minute cards in a triple SLI setup. How long you can go between upgrades has always been a subjective choice.
 
2013-02-23 10:05:51 PM  
If your video card is more than six months old, it's out of date. But how old would it have to be to not run a new release at all? Pretty goddamned old for the most part. PC games are set up to run on a spectrum of hardware, from barely running on the minimum spec, to smooth as butter with all of the pretty turned on at the bleeding edge. Just read the box, and you'll generally be fine. And isn't the occasional hardware upgrade part of the fun?

Not to mention- cross platform development is pretty much done for all major titles these days, which means that any gaming PC built after the release of a console will be able to play all those cross-platform games as long as the console is still around. I've got a circa 2007 graphics card that I just got out of storage that still runs a lot of modern games on very low settings, because it's still better than what was released with the console.
 
2013-02-23 10:06:02 PM  
We can get along.

WE CAN GET ALONG.

CELEBRATE DIVERSITY.

/cries
 
2013-02-23 10:06:45 PM  

Snapper Carr: Am I the only person who uses both?


No, I do too.  But the PC vs Console argument is stupid.  It made sense when you were comparing an NES to a 386, but now?  Who cares?  The modern console is just a specialized PC for non-techies.
 
2013-02-23 10:10:37 PM  

gaspode: become obsolete much faster (well, need upgrading anyway)


Become obsolete versus the current-gen PC tech, but still way ahead of what the console was built with, and as long as you're ahead of the console tech you'll still be able to play most of the cross-platform releases.

The 360 was released in 2004, and the gap in time it takes to get the supply chain up and running after system design means that it was already behind the bleeding edge on day-1. All the 360's of the world are probably running late 2003 or early 2004 tech in terms of PC evolution.
 
2013-02-23 10:12:02 PM  
Unless you're in the arcade, you're not a true gamer.
 
2013-02-23 10:12:07 PM  

Fubini: Far Cry 3 - Free vs$ 60


I am loving Far Cry 3.  I had to pay $30 for it though.  When were they offering it for free?
 
2013-02-23 10:12:51 PM  
$2000 PC or $500 Playstation/$300 Xbox?

It seems pretty clear to me which will be more popular
 
2013-02-23 10:13:30 PM  

jakepowers: $2000 PC or $500 Playstation/$300 Xbox?

It seems pretty clear to me which will be more popular


I didn't bother reading the article but THIS.

/the PC is dying
 
2013-02-23 10:15:21 PM  
1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-02-23 10:16:23 PM  

Lsherm: Fubini: Far Cry 3 - Free vs$ 60

I am loving Far Cry 3.  I had to pay $30 for it though.  When were they offering it for free?


It came as a freebie for relatively high-end ATI video cards late last year.
 
2013-02-23 10:19:11 PM  
www.mopo.ca
 
2013-02-23 10:19:40 PM  

Snapper Carr: Am I the only person who uses both?

Consoles are fine for the vast majority of games but there are certain types of games that you really need a PC to get the most out of - I think if I tried to play a Civ game with a PS3 controller I would lose my mind. Also some games just feel right on a PC platform (most recent example I can think of is XCom:Enemy Unknown). PS3 demo left me kinda meh but playing the PC version just felt like I was home


Yep. I play RTS, tower defense, and Four X games on my computer, and I use a console for everything else. I don't have to buy too expensive a computer to run Civ, Warhammer, and Plants vs. Zombies on my computer, so it ends up being pretty cost-effective for me. I like that my console is always guaranteed to run the games that I buy for it at its optimal settings, as silly as that might sound.
 
2013-02-23 10:19:52 PM  
Guess what guise?

Tesla just released a $100,000 electric car.

I am declaring the $10,000 gasoline car dead - it is obvious that no one will ever buy these obsolescent pieces of crap again.

/why can't we just have both?
 
2013-02-23 10:26:20 PM  
Didn't read the thread so this was probably covered, but I can't build a gaming quality PC for $300.
 
2013-02-23 10:29:34 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: I gave up pc gaming once I hooked the xbox up to a nice big screen tv and played it kicked back in a nice comfortable chair.

nows theres nothing on my lap except your mom.


You can't connect your PC to your big screen TV? LOL noob.
 
2013-02-23 10:31:27 PM  

traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]


what the hell causes that?
 
2013-02-23 10:34:17 PM  

Hyjamon: traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]

what the hell causes that?


The edge of your computer table.
 
2013-02-23 10:35:48 PM  

GAT_00: I'll say what I said last time we did this: PC markets will never die because games like Crusader Kings will never work on consoles, and there's plenty of market for grand strategy games.

Relatively Obscure: JUST got my first PC that could qualify as high..ish.. end. It's lovely, but the price tag was not.

Did you buy it assembled or build it yourself?  I have an 8GB RAM system, 1GB GeForce 460 SE card, and a 6 core, 3.2GB processor.  Admittedly the RAM is a bit slower, I think it's 1333 RAM, but I still only spent 1K on all that.


Stop, just stop.

Anyway, for Console Gamers, do you also own a PC? How much did you pay for that? Add that cost to your console because you still own a PC regardless.

For me, I stay just behind the curve and thus pay almost nothing. My HD 6870 is still going strong, plays everything new at 1080 on high settings, and I got it for $180(NZD, about 130/140USD) two years ago. Coupled with a 2500K.

I have it attached to dual monitors on a desk, which wraps around through HDMI to a 50" 1920x1080 screen facing the couch, where I have an Xbox 360 wireless controller dongle hidden. I don't have to search for Drivers. Software doesn't use drivers. And if I do add new hardware, Windows automatically finds the drivers for me unless I want the latest GPU drivers (which I'm too lazy to install, yet still don't have any issues with games).

I have Steam installed, where I pay a pittance for games, especially during a sale and everything just works whilst keeping itself updated.

I can play every common/uncommon file format. I can centralise all my data and access with ease. I can also do my work on this computer.
 
2013-02-23 10:37:00 PM  

jakepowers: $2000 PC or $500 Playstation/$300 Xbox?

It seems pretty clear to me which will be more popular


I did a LOT of bargain hunting during the last black Friday system, so most people would end up paying 20-30% more for this system, but this is what I got for less than $1100 last November.

Intel Core i5 w/ 4 cores @ 3.4GHz each
AMD 7870 from Gigabyte w/ 2GB DDR5 dedicated graphics RAM
8 Gigs 1600MHz DDR4 dedicated system RAM
360Gigs of Intel SSD storage ( 2 x 180GB)

Speculated PS4 specs:
AMD 8-cores at mid-level performance
GPU equivalent to a AMD 7850
8 Gigs DDR5 of shared System/Graphics RAM
No SSD

So my system is pretty clearly better, and you'll be able to build it for $1000 or less by the time the PS4 hits the market, and the games will be substantially cheaper, on average, unless you're buying everything on release day. (In which case you probably aren't that cost-sensitive.)

I fully expect the total cost of ownership to be much less than a next-gen console.
 
2013-02-23 10:39:05 PM  
The games may look prettier on the PC but the selection blows.

Most of my favorite games are console exclusives. Seems a lot of those popular PC games are just ports from consoles these days.
 
2013-02-23 10:45:08 PM  
Main thing I hate about console gaming:  Load times.  That being said, I think there's a market for both.  Sometimes I just want to sit on a couch with a controller in my hand, and sometimes I want to sit at a desk and game with a mouse and keyboard.
 
2013-02-23 10:48:22 PM  

revrendjim: Didn't read the thread so this was probably covered, but I can't build a gaming quality PC for $300.


But then you pay twice as much for all the games you buy. I have about 15 games in my 360 library, and if I were able to save $30 on all of them that'd be $450 in savings. I don't normally pay $60 for a game, but I do for some, so assume they cost $50 each:

$300 for console
$900 in games @ $60 each x 15
$120 in controllers @ $40 x 3
$200 in XBL @ $40 x 5 years

So the total is $1520 over five years. The PC premium isn't much more than that:

$1100 for a very nice PC
$450 in games @ $30 each x 15
No controllers
No XBL

For a total of $1550 over five years.

I was able to get Borderlands 2 for $30 on Steam less than 2 months or so after release.
 
2013-02-23 10:50:36 PM  

Fubini: assume they cost $50 each


Woops, the total for the console over 5 years should be $1370.
 
2013-02-23 10:51:28 PM  

traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]


Guilty as charged.
 
2013-02-23 10:52:14 PM  
1080p.

That's all a console has to render to... and do it in full 3D. Hardware available for a dedicated $400 console should be able to handle it at full feature-level rendering @ 60fps.

Gaming PCs, on the other hand, will be driven to render to multiple 2560x1440 displays, on top of an operating system that grows more and more "active" underneath the game as security becomes more and more sophisticated.

In short, while gaming rigs will continue to have to match higher and higher specs, consoles have a fairly fixed target. 4K displays may not become mainstream for another 10 years (is there really a need for this in the home?) or more. I don't see a high percentage of chance of consoles ever supporting multiple monitors in the future generations, either.
 
2013-02-23 10:53:11 PM  

Relatively Obscure: I was going to assemble it myself originally (I can and have, but.. I can't say I specifically LIKE to)


I don't do it anymore for one simple reason.  If something farks up, I can typically send the whole thing back.  I don't have to worry about ESD or bending a pin/scratching a contact/etc.

Few things compare to a tower that just sits there because you had to return a stick of ram or a hdd.  Worth the tad extra, IF it's extra.  Most places that custom configure are pretty damned reasonable. (Well, the high traffic sites(IE cyberpower), plenty of ma&pa type stores that charge out the wazoo).  Unless you're a serious bargain bin hunter, you're not saving a huge bundle.

It all falls apart of course if you're picky on the motherboard or otherwise really into specific parts that are outside the configurators.

______________________

As to the article.  As if someone said the console was better....Pointless article is pointless.  Bang for your buck, consoles win out, and multiplayer / friendslists / guests / comfort factor.  Otherwise PC's win out with sheer power at the cost.

Who in their right mind does not know this?  Who is that article for?


dyhchong: Add that cost to your console because you still own a PC regardless.


No.  If there were some sort of interoperability with games then maybe.  But no.
They mimic eachother, but do not really add to the experience at all, either or.  About all you can do with a PC is mod gamesaves and stream movies.  Other than that it's irrelevant to the console and not part of the cost.
 
2013-02-23 10:56:16 PM  

Fubini: revrendjim: Didn't read the thread so this was probably covered, but I can't build a gaming quality PC for $300.

But then you pay twice as much for all the games you buy. I have about 15 games in my 360 library, and if I were able to save $30 on all of them that'd be $450 in savings. I don't normally pay $60 for a game, but I do for some, so assume they cost $50 each:

$300 for console
$900 in games @ $60 each x 15
$120 in controllers @ $40 x 3
$200 in XBL @ $40 x 5 years

So the total is $1520 over five years. The PC premium isn't much more than that:

$1100 for a very nice PC
$450 in games @ $30 each x 15
No controllers
No XBL

For a total of $1550 over five years.

I was able to get Borderlands 2 for $30 on Steam less than 2 months or so after release.


You can add another $500 or so to the console crowd to pay for the computer that they need to do things like word processing and photo editing.
 
2013-02-23 10:57:43 PM  

dyhchong: Stop, just stop.


What, I'm not allowed to be proud of my only slightly behind the edge computer?
 
2013-02-23 11:01:18 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Relatively Obscure: I was going to assemble it myself originally (I can and have, but.. I can't say I specifically LIKE to)

I don't do it anymore for one simple reason.  If something farks up, I can typically send the whole thing back.  I don't have to worry about ESD or bending a pin/scratching a contact/etc.

Few things compare to a tower that just sits there because you had to return a stick of ram or a hdd.  Worth the tad extra, IF it's extra.  Most places that custom configure are pretty damned reasonable. (Well, the high traffic sites(IE cyberpower), plenty of ma&pa type stores that charge out the wazoo).  Unless you're a serious bargain bin hunter, you're not saving a huge bundle.

It all falls apart of course if you're picky on the motherboard or otherwise really into specific parts that are outside the configurators.

______________________

As to the article.  As if someone said the console was better....Pointless article is pointless.  Bang for your buck, consoles win out, and multiplayer / friendslists / guests / comfort factor.  Otherwise PC's win out with sheer power at the cost.

Who in their right mind does not know this?  Who is that article for?


dyhchong: Add that cost to your console because you still own a PC regardless.

No.  If there were some sort of interoperability with games then maybe.  But no.
They mimic eachother, but do not really add to the experience at all, either or.  About all you can do with a PC is mod gamesaves and stream movies.  Other than that it's irrelevant to the console and not part of the cost.


The point isn't just gaming.

The point is can you reasonably buy just a console and not have a PC?

Can you reasonably buy just a PC and not have a console?

So regardless, you reasonably need a PC, by having a gaming PC you needn't buy a second PC. But by having a gaming console, you still need to also buy a PC, adding to the cost of ownership of a console.
 
2013-02-23 11:05:20 PM  
Properly built and setup, a computer does everything your host of electronic devices attempt to do except better and often simultaneously. Consoles are an electronic device for playing video games. I do not expect them to be media machines, for browsing online, boxes to mod, for live streaming of sports, downloading files, social networking, working on reports and research, collaborating on projects, talking or videochatting with others, and emulating old games simultaneously. Besides, FPS, RTS, and MMOs in general are better on the PC due to our expectation of contouring game settings alongside mouse and keyboard. But, I do not expect my 360 to do this; I expect my 360 to let me play Rock Band in the living room and my PS2 to run Ico and Shadow of the Colossus when I want.
 
2013-02-23 11:07:55 PM  

LesserEvil: 4K displays may not become mainstream for another 10 years (is there really a need for this in the home?)


Cnet had an article that said the human eye was physically incapable of telling the difference until screen sizes got above 55 inches, at which point you need a whole lotta room to sit farther back from the TV.  So I guess they make the most sense for people with large family rooms or dedicated theater rooms.
 
2013-02-23 11:08:52 PM  

Relatively Obscure: consoles are quite a lot cheaper and do a pretty good job of being perfectly fun.


This should, honestly, be the conversation ender.
 
2013-02-23 11:10:27 PM  

Fubini: Fubini: assume they cost $50 each

Woops, the total for the console over 5 years should be $1370.


There is still wisdom in your words. Ten years ago I built my own boxes. I shall contemplate this.
 
2013-02-23 11:13:34 PM  

meanmutton: Relatively Obscure: consoles are quite a lot cheaper and do a pretty good job of being perfectly fun.

This should, honestly, be the conversation ender.


And this. Saints Row the Third is currently on the xbox and I'm having tons of fun.
 
2013-02-23 11:14:59 PM  
A few points:

1. You can use a mouse and keyboard on the PS3. There are a few games that support it, too.
2. You can use a gamepad (the Xbox 360 wireless version, in fact) with a PC. Most Windows action games support it.
3. PCs are good for FPS (if you're a keyboard/mouse fan), RPGs, RTS, and other point-and-click games.
4. Consoles are good for action, sports, platformer, JRPGs, motion-control, and puzzle games.
5. There's no law in any state that makes it a crime to own both a PC and console.
6. Likewise, no law exists that forbids playing games on both a PC and a console.
7. Your (wife/kid/mom/grandma) hates trying to make PC games work. That's why you have a console.
8. You hate arguing over who gets to use the HDTV. That's why you have a PC.
9. Everybody plays games now. They're mainstream. The imaginary line between "gamers" and "nongamers" is bullshiat.
10. Like it or not, games like Angry Birds, Farmville, Cut the Rope, and Fruit Ninja  are "real" videogames, and no biatching about how "real" gamers only play Call of Duty, Crysis, and World of Warcraft is going to change the fact that casual gaming has been more popular than twitch/FPS gaming since the invention of Pong, followed by the popularity of Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Tetris, Myst, Lemmings, and thousands of other casual titles that were played by more people than any FPS or RTS, ever.

Dig it.
 
2013-02-23 11:15:57 PM  
All I care about is being able to play Super Mario 3, I don't give a poop what I do it on. I just use the laptop I won at a Christmas party and a USB NES controller. I hook the whole mess up to the TV and viola! It's just like when I was a kid and gaming was an amusing pastime as opposed to a pissing contest/money pit.
 
2013-02-23 11:18:57 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Few things compare to a tower that just sits there because you had to return a stick of ram or a hdd. Worth the tad extra, IF it's extra. Most places that custom configure are pretty damned reasonable. (Well, the high traffic sites(IE cyberpower), plenty of ma&pa type stores that charge out the wazoo). Unless you're a serious bargain bin hunter, you're not saving a huge bundle.


Cyberpower frightens me.  Their website kills any techboner I might have at the time, for some reason.
 
2013-02-23 11:20:38 PM  

GAT_00: dyhchong: Stop, just stop.

What, I'm not allowed to be proud of my only slightly behind the edge computer?


RAM Capacity = pointless unless it's a bottleneck. If it's not, more won't actually have any effect on performance. (and it's like $5 a gig)
RAM Frequency = pointless except for specific tasks. You won't see any difference going from 1333MHz to 1600MHz unless you're timing how long it takes to unRAR a big file.
The AMD Phenom II X6s are quite crappy, they have far lower IPC than Sandy Bridge onwards, so the clock rate (in GHz, not GB) is irrelevant unless you're comparing very close neighbours. The Pentium Ds, with their two cores were clocked close to 4GHz, yet they're rivaled by Atoms at 1.6GHz these days.

Most important components for determining gaming performance is CPU/GPU and whether you have enough RAM, but if you're not using more than 4GB, you won't see any speedbump going to 16/32 or 64GB of RAM.

What your storage medium is can also have an effect in that your computer can boot faster and loading times in games that load between levels but it won't increase your frames, number of characters onscreen or image quality that improving the other two will.
 
2013-02-23 11:21:13 PM  

ZeroCorpse: 0. Like it or not, games like Angry Birds, Farmville, Cut the Rope, and Fruit Ninja are "real" videogames, and no biatching about how "real" gamers only play Call of Duty, Crysis, and World of Warcraft is going to change the fact that casual gaming has been more popular than twitch/FPS gaming since the invention of Pong, followed by the popularity of Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Tetris, Myst, Lemmings, and thousands of other casual titles that were played by more people than any FPS or RTS, ever.


I dislike Angry Birds, Farmville, Call of Duty AND World of Warcraft.  I DON'T KNOW WHERE I FIT IN! :'(
 
2013-02-23 11:24:28 PM  

Fubini: FTL


I'm convinced that's a troll game. Got my ass handed to me every time I got to the 2nd boss fight. On EASY. I had to uninstall it because I was concerned I was going to start breaking shiat.
Also another game I can't imagine trying to play with a console controller.
 
2013-02-23 11:25:06 PM  
Did they follow up by asking him whether a taurus could compete with a ferrari?
 
2013-02-23 11:25:48 PM  

bob_ross: Lets put it this way, build a PC with the same RAW processing specs as a PS4

Compare price.  Yeah, console, make a whole lot of sense with a way bigger payoff - chances are you already own decent PC.

Besides How many other than game types besides FPS/MMORPG or strategy are really fun without a joystick? Yeah playing Arcade/driving/console type games suck with a keyboard.

Yeah sure you can DO way more with a PC but strictly from a GAMERS (yeah you're really a gamer if you only own a PC) it makes wayyy more sense.


You aren't a gamer if you don't have a dice bag.

I can build a computer with more raw processing power than a PS3 for cheaper than a PS3. I can build a computer with the same processing power as a PS4 for just a little over they're going to cost at launch, and for about half what a PS4 costs a year later.

There's a reason FPSs, all the big ticket RPGs, ALL the strategy games, and the MMORPGs are on the PC. All the games look better, perform better, are moddable, and if you want to gripe and moan about some 16 button pieces of plastic that are designed to be usable by the lowest common denominator, you can use both the PS3 and XBOX 360 controllers on a PC. Not to mention the wide plethora of controller options that aren't available on the consoles. I've got a Logitech G13 and G9x sitting on my desk right next to an XBOX 360 controller I use to play Dead Space.

Consoles only make sense for the poor and computer illiterate who do not have the capability or will to roll up their sleeves and learn how to use a computer.
 
2013-02-23 11:26:24 PM  

dyhchong: GAT_00: dyhchong: Stop, just stop.

What, I'm not allowed to be proud of my only slightly behind the edge computer?

RAM Capacity = pointless unless it's a bottleneck. If it's not, more won't actually have any effect on performance. (and it's like $5 a gig)
RAM Frequency = pointless except for specific tasks. You won't see any difference going from 1333MHz to 1600MHz unless you're timing how long it takes to unRAR a big file.
The AMD Phenom II X6s are quite crappy, they have far lower IPC than Sandy Bridge onwards, so the clock rate (in GHz, not GB) is irrelevant unless you're comparing very close neighbours. The Pentium Ds, with their two cores were clocked close to 4GHz, yet they're rivaled by Atoms at 1.6GHz these days.

Most important components for determining gaming performance is CPU/GPU and whether you have enough RAM, but if you're not using more than 4GB, you won't see any speedbump going to 16/32 or 64GB of RAM.

What your storage medium is can also have an effect in that your computer can boot faster and loading times in games that load between levels but it won't increase your frames, number of characters onscreen or image quality that improving the other two will.


And honestly, I had to take the X6 because I was pretty short on cash when I built it, but my old computer was beyond out of date.  I got the best of what I could afford, and despite not being bleeding edge even when built, I'm still happy with it.  It's also why it doesn't have a SSD.  But nothing I regularly play needs that absolute bleeding edge, and the work I do on it may be 5-10% slower with the weaker processors, but I generally do short operations, so I can't tell.
 
2013-02-23 11:32:41 PM  

GAT_00: dyhchong: GAT_00: dyhchong: Stop, just stop.

What, I'm not allowed to be proud of my only slightly behind the edge computer?

RAM Capacity = pointless unless it's a bottleneck. If it's not, more won't actually have any effect on performance. (and it's like $5 a gig)
RAM Frequency = pointless except for specific tasks. You won't see any difference going from 1333MHz to 1600MHz unless you're timing how long it takes to unRAR a big file.
The AMD Phenom II X6s are quite crappy, they have far lower IPC than Sandy Bridge onwards, so the clock rate (in GHz, not GB) is irrelevant unless you're comparing very close neighbours. The Pentium Ds, with their two cores were clocked close to 4GHz, yet they're rivaled by Atoms at 1.6GHz these days.

Most important components for determining gaming performance is CPU/GPU and whether you have enough RAM, but if you're not using more than 4GB, you won't see any speedbump going to 16/32 or 64GB of RAM.

What your storage medium is can also have an effect in that your computer can boot faster and loading times in games that load between levels but it won't increase your frames, number of characters onscreen or image quality that improving the other two will.

And honestly, I had to take the X6 because I was pretty short on cash when I built it, but my old computer was beyond out of date.  I got the best of what I could afford, and despite not being bleeding edge even when built, I'm still happy with it.  It's also why it doesn't have a SSD.  But nothing I regularly play needs that absolute bleeding edge, and the work I do on it may be 5-10% slower with the weaker processors, but I generally do short operations, so I can't tell.


I wasn't saying your computer was bad, the stop was that you were proudly screwing up all the measures that actually mean anything, hell the 360 has three cores at 3.2GHz and would be less than half the performance of my 3.3GHz quad. It's like home appliance retailers selling desktops boasting a GT320 WITH 2GB OF GRAPHICS RAM. When it could barely take advantage of 512MB because they're the numbers people think mean good, when really a GT320 is an HTPC class card.

Your computer will still play all new games at decent settings (and far better than consoles, the Xbox 360 and PS3s are using a derivative of a seven generation old GPU.
 
2013-02-23 11:33:58 PM  

RogermcAllen: Fubini: revrendjim: Didn't read the thread so this was probably covered, but I can't build a gaming quality PC for $300.

But then you pay twice as much for all the games you buy. I have about 15 games in my 360 library, and if I were able to save $30 on all of them that'd be $450 in savings. I don't normally pay $60 for a game, but I do for some, so assume they cost $50 each:

$300 for console
$900 in games @ $60 each x 15
$120 in controllers @ $40 x 3
$200 in XBL @ $40 x 5 years

So the total is $1520 over five years. The PC premium isn't much more than that:

$1100 for a very nice PC
$450 in games @ $30 each x 15
No controllers
No XBL

For a total of $1550 over five years.

I was able to get Borderlands 2 for $30 on Steam less than 2 months or so after release.

You can add another $500 or so to the console crowd to pay for the computer that they need to do things like word processing and photo editing.


Is that PC really staying untouched for 5 years?
Or does it get a new videocard in year 3, new OS in years 2 and 4, new HD in year 3, etc etc?
+100.00 or more for office, antivirus and other software not gaming related, but, necessary for the PC experience.
Then add in some cost for a controller unless you never deviate from FPS or RTS. Madden and stuff comes out on PC I believe.
Some things controllers are useful for.

Don't have a preference between platforms, but, the true costs should be called out.
 
2013-02-23 11:34:42 PM  

lordargent: fusillade762: This right here. Absolutely cannot play any FPS with a console controller.

I can play a FPS on anything.

Likewise, I played racing games on a PC with a mouse and keyboard.

// as a joke once, I played a level in halo using a Guitar Hero guitar ... I would never do that in multiplayer though ... unless I was playing against other people who were using Guitars.


Hah, when I worked at EA I played a game of Fifa 09 using Rock Band drums against someone using the Scene It controller.
 
2013-02-23 11:35:55 PM  

Virtual Pariah: RogermcAllen: Fubini: revrendjim: Didn't read the thread so this was probably covered, but I can't build a gaming quality PC for $300.

But then you pay twice as much for all the games you buy. I have about 15 games in my 360 library, and if I were able to save $30 on all of them that'd be $450 in savings. I don't normally pay $60 for a game, but I do for some, so assume they cost $50 each:

$300 for console
$900 in games @ $60 each x 15
$120 in controllers @ $40 x 3
$200 in XBL @ $40 x 5 years

So the total is $1520 over five years. The PC premium isn't much more than that:

$1100 for a very nice PC
$450 in games @ $30 each x 15
No controllers
No XBL

For a total of $1550 over five years.

I was able to get Borderlands 2 for $30 on Steam less than 2 months or so after release.

You can add another $500 or so to the console crowd to pay for the computer that they need to do things like word processing and photo editing.

Is that PC really staying untouched for 5 years?
Or does it get a new videocard in year 3, new OS in years 2 and 4, new HD in year 3, etc etc?
+100.00 or more for office, antivirus and other software not gaming related, but, necessary for the PC experience.
Then add in some cost for a controller unless you never deviate from FPS or RTS. Madden and stuff comes out on PC I believe.
Some things controllers are useful for.

Don't have a preference between platforms, but, the true costs should be called out.


Adding the cost of Office to a PC means you have to add the cost of a supplementary PC you're going to buy to the console.
 
2013-02-23 11:35:57 PM  

Snapper Carr: Am I the only person who uses both?


You abomination!  You're lucky both sides are compassionate and tolerant enough to let you continue living.
 
2013-02-23 11:38:29 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Like it or not, games like Angry Birds, Farmville, Cut the Rope, and Fruit Ninja are "real" videogames,


You are correct.  They are also bad video games.

ZeroCorpse: and thousands of other casual titles that were played by more people than any FPS or RTS, ever.


And what exactly is your point?  That people have bad taste?
 
2013-02-23 11:39:19 PM  

Ghastly: Lsherm: Ghastly: The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.

With the PC, publishers notoriously lie about the minimum specs needed to run a game just to get you to buy it. So you guy your top of the line gaming PC and it runs all the games that came out the month you bought your PC. Then six months down the line your games download a patch to fix bugs and improve content and now your machine struggles a bit to keep up with the demands. Then another six months and you can completely forget about buying any current games because your ancient 1 year old video card is ridiculously underpowered and obsolete everything in your PC is woefully inadequate for running current games and needs to be upgraded. Repeat every year. And then between your software updates and hardware updates suddenly the old games you used to love no longer work on your machine because the new version of Direct X or some other driver is no longer backwards compatible with the old stuff.

I have a Gamecube. It still runs every Gamecube game. 10 years from now it will still run every Gamecube game. I have an XBox 360. It runs every Xbox 360 game. 10 years from now it will still run every Xbox game. My windows 7 PC won`t run current generation games worth crap because it`s a little over a year old and now considered obsolete. It also won`t run awesome old games like Interstate `76 because Direct X updates and the operating system are not backwards compatible enough to run the game.

You can usually get 3 or more years out of a PC unless you went really cheap when you bought it.

Also, if you don't want to build a virtual machine to run old games on old OSes, Good Old Games has your back:   http://www.gog.com/gamecard/interstate76   All they do is port old games to new OSes.

From what I heard the GOG version of Interstate 76 doesn`t run on Windows 7 at all and is very hit and miss o ...


sun virtualbox is a pretty impressive piece of software
I havent used it for games, but for all the other software which needed older OSes, it worked insanely good.
 
2013-02-23 11:39:23 PM  
I'm obviously an expert on this topic, since I own a 360, PS3, Wii, Wii U, DS, 3DS, and two gaming PCs.  PC gaming is far superior, period.   You can all stop arguing now.

/why yes, I am single
 
2013-02-23 11:40:14 PM  

DrunkenBob: Snapper Carr: Am I the only person who uses both?

You abomination!  You're lucky both sides are compassionate and tolerant enough to let you continue living.


There is no game but WoW.
Why would you need a "console" thingy??

/wrists
 
2013-02-23 11:40:45 PM  
I built my machine for $2000.  It runs a ton of games like a dream.  Although, I didn't build it for gaming, it was built for my graphic design stuff mostly, I don't even really game anymore.  Once Mass Effect 3 is all out of DLC's and Dragon Age 3 has come and gone, I'm out of the gaming game.

But yeah, if xbox or playstation could run all my art stuff I guess I would use that.

Why am I posting in this thread?

Oh yeah, um, PC is better?  I don't know, I'm bad at these flame war things.
 
2013-02-23 11:44:40 PM  

dyhchong: Virtual Pariah: RogermcAllen: Fubini: revrendjim: Didn't read the thread so this was probably covered, but I can't build a gaming quality PC for $300.

But then you pay twice as much for all the games you buy. I have about 15 games in my 360 library, and if I were able to save $30 on all of them that'd be $450 in savings. I don't normally pay $60 for a game, but I do for some, so assume they cost $50 each:

$300 for console
$900 in games @ $60 each x 15
$120 in controllers @ $40 x 3
$200 in XBL @ $40 x 5 years

So the total is $1520 over five years. The PC premium isn't much more than that:

$1100 for a very nice PC
$450 in games @ $30 each x 15
No controllers
No XBL

For a total of $1550 over five years.

I was able to get Borderlands 2 for $30 on Steam less than 2 months or so after release.

You can add another $500 or so to the console crowd to pay for the computer that they need to do things like word processing and photo editing.

Is that PC really staying untouched for 5 years?
Or does it get a new videocard in year 3, new OS in years 2 and 4, new HD in year 3, etc etc?
+100.00 or more for office, antivirus and other software not gaming related, but, necessary for the PC experience.
Then add in some cost for a controller unless you never deviate from FPS or RTS. Madden and stuff comes out on PC I believe.
Some things controllers are useful for.

Don't have a preference between platforms, but, the true costs should be called out.

Adding the cost of Office to a PC means you have to add the cost of a supplementary PC you're going to buy to the console.

Ok,

but someone already did account for that.

Or we can pull office and the supplementary out of the equation on both counts, so now we are back to the original equation.

The most cost effective gaming platform is a smartphone. That throws the formula way off.

$300 for Phone (unsubsidized mid level)
$20 in games (20 @ $.99 or 10 at $1.99)
$0 for controllers
$0 for XBL
$0 for OS upgrades

I'm not counting MRC because it's something you would have anyway for the phone.

None of these comparisons are really apples vs apples.
 
2013-02-23 11:48:36 PM  
I play games on consoles. I've played games on consoles since the Atari came out.
I play games on PCs. I've played games on PCs since the Apple II+ came out.
But I do not play games on little hand held devices.
 
2013-02-23 11:55:46 PM  

Relatively Obscure: omeganuepsilon: Few things compare to a tower that just sits there because you had to return a stick of ram or a hdd. Worth the tad extra, IF it's extra. Most places that custom configure are pretty damned reasonable. (Well, the high traffic sites(IE cyberpower), plenty of ma&pa type stores that charge out the wazoo). Unless you're a serious bargain bin hunter, you're not saving a huge bundle.

Cyberpower frightens me.  Their website kills any techboner I might have at the time, for some reason.


fark Cyberpower.  If I win the lottery, I'm getting a Falcon Northwest Mach V with a custom paint scheme:

img339.imageshack.us

PC Gamer reviews them once a year.  It's about the only machine that's ever given me half a chub just looking at it.

Also slightly NSFW case art.
 
2013-02-23 11:56:53 PM  
Snapper Carr: Am I the only person who uses both?

Not only do I use both, but I have merged the console/couch/PC experience into some sort of twisted abomination of media goodness.  I moved my fancy PC over to behind the couch and hooked it into the projector, I've forgone my old dual monitor setup for over a month now in favor of one giant 120" HD display.  Wireless keyboard is comfy on my lap, the mouse sits on the armrest when I need it - I'm reclined on the couch even as I type.  I sound fat.

For gaming the KB/M still works great, I have no problems with precision in FPS games thanks to the low/wide couch armrests, and for other stuff I can use the wireless 360 controller if I want.  The latter which works especially well for the PS2 and Wii  emulators that run smoothly on the PC, which lets me bump up the resolution of the older games and cut down on load times.  I do own an actual Wii and PS2, but they're in a closet after getting these emulators up and running and my library ported - the PC runs em faster and at higher resolution (though you can only do so much, they look a helluva lot better).

PS3 is on a simple HDMI switch, 360 doesn't get used much anymore since most of the games on that system I want, have been ported to PC and Steam.

/who wants to touch me
// I SAID WHO WANTS TO F-ING TOUCH ME?!
///please...someone...anyone...touch me
 
2013-02-23 11:58:41 PM  

Lsherm: Relatively Obscure: omeganuepsilon: Few things compare to a tower that just sits there because you had to return a stick of ram or a hdd. Worth the tad extra, IF it's extra. Most places that custom configure are pretty damned reasonable. (Well, the high traffic sites(IE cyberpower), plenty of ma&pa type stores that charge out the wazoo). Unless you're a serious bargain bin hunter, you're not saving a huge bundle.

Cyberpower frightens me.  Their website kills any techboner I might have at the time, for some reason.

fark Cyberpower.  If I win the lottery, I'm getting a Falcon Northwest Mach V with a custom paint scheme:

[img339.imageshack.us image 728x1024]

PC Gamer reviews them once a year.  It's about the only machine that's ever given me half a chub just looking at it.

Also slightly NSFW case art.


Too much 70's Van for me.
 
2013-02-23 11:58:41 PM  

taxandspend: You're all wrong. The superior gaming option is this:


 [www.nintendo.com image 388x360]


Are those any fun?  I was thinking about picking up a 3DS.
 
2013-02-23 11:59:30 PM  
Gaming must be so very hard for all of you. Am I the only blessed person who simply installs games, then plays them, and they work?

I'd write about this on my blog and link it here, but as we know, my blog sucks.
 
2013-02-23 11:59:36 PM  

Virtual Pariah: Lsherm: Relatively Obscure: omeganuepsilon: Few things compare to a tower that just sits there because you had to return a stick of ram or a hdd. Worth the tad extra, IF it's extra. Most places that custom configure are pretty damned reasonable. (Well, the high traffic sites(IE cyberpower), plenty of ma&pa type stores that charge out the wazoo). Unless you're a serious bargain bin hunter, you're not saving a huge bundle.

Cyberpower frightens me.  Their website kills any techboner I might have at the time, for some reason.

fark Cyberpower.  If I win the lottery, I'm getting a Falcon Northwest Mach V with a custom paint scheme:

[img339.imageshack.us image 728x1024]

PC Gamer reviews them once a year.  It's about the only machine that's ever given me half a chub just looking at it.

Also slightly NSFW case art.

Too much 70's Van for me.


I'm a product of the 70's.  Perfect for me.  If they could only put in a little bubble window at the back it would be teh awesome.
 
2013-02-24 12:01:21 AM  

Yuri Futanari: Snapper Carr: Am I the only person who uses both?

Not only do I use both, but I have merged the console/couch/PC experience into some sort of twisted abomination of media goodness.  I moved my fancy PC over to behind the couch and hooked it into the projector, I've forgone my old dual monitor setup for over a month now in favor of one giant 120" HD display.  Wireless keyboard is comfy on my lap, the mouse sits on the armrest when I need it - I'm reclined on the couch even as I type.  I sound fat.

For gaming the KB/M still works great, I have no problems with precision in FPS games thanks to the low/wide couch armrests, and for other stuff I can use the wireless 360 controller if I want.  The latter which works especially well for the PS2 and Wii  emulators that run smoothly on the PC, which lets me bump up the resolution of the older games and cut down on load times.  I do own an actual Wii and PS2, but they're in a closet after getting these emulators up and running and my library ported - the PC runs em faster and at higher resolution (though you can only do so much, they look a helluva lot better).

PS3 is on a simple HDMI switch, 360 doesn't get used much anymore since most of the games on that system I want, have been ported to PC and Steam.

/who wants to touch me
// I SAID WHO WANTS TO F-ING TOUCH ME?!
///please...someone...anyone...touch me


What projector?
I've been thinking of going this route when my TV dies. (should be in the next year or so)

Is it warming up the living room too much? Do you need complete darkness or can you open a window and still see the screen?
 
2013-02-24 12:21:09 AM  
And a Ferrari cannot compete with a formula one racer, but at that point the average driver isn't going to notice the difference
 
2013-02-24 12:21:22 AM  

Mr. Fuzzypaws: I'd rather wait 10 minutes for a game to install on my Playstation then spend an hour tracking down drivers. At least I can do it unattended and do something productive while I wait, like whack off or something.


Hah always one of these failtrolls in these threads.

This isn't DOS where you have to hack at shiat anymore.  Every few months my drivers ask me if I want to upgrade them, other than that I spend zero time doing anything with them.

Also I can play a game while another downloads on Steam.  I installed a game on my 360 a few days ago and it just sits there showing me a progress bar.  Primitive.
 
2013-02-24 12:22:11 AM  

Virtual Pariah: Yuri Futanari: Snapper Carr: Am I the only person who uses both?

Not only do I use both, but I have merged the console/couch/PC experience into some sort of twisted abomination of media goodness.  I moved my fancy PC over to behind the couch and hooked it into the projector, I've forgone my old dual monitor setup for over a month now in favor of one giant 120" HD display.  Wireless keyboard is comfy on my lap, the mouse sits on the armrest when I need it - I'm reclined on the couch even as I type.  I sound fat.

For gaming the KB/M still works great, I have no problems with precision in FPS games thanks to the low/wide couch armrests, and for other stuff I can use the wireless 360 controller if I want.  The latter which works especially well for the PS2 and Wii  emulators that run smoothly on the PC, which lets me bump up the resolution of the older games and cut down on load times.  I do own an actual Wii and PS2, but they're in a closet after getting these emulators up and running and my library ported - the PC runs em faster and at higher resolution (though you can only do so much, they look a helluva lot better).

PS3 is on a simple HDMI switch, 360 doesn't get used much anymore since most of the games on that system I want, have been ported to PC and Steam.

/who wants to touch me
// I SAID WHO WANTS TO F-ING TOUCH ME?!
///please...someone...anyone...touch me

What projector?
I've been thinking of going this route when my TV dies. (should be in the next year or so)

Is it warming up the living room too much? Do you need complete darkness or can you open a window and still see the screen?


I bought an Epson LCD projector for $1300 about two years ago and it worked really well in most light settings. Lower light will produce better results but I still had an awesome 96 inch screen when the sun was out and the lights were on. Heat and fan noise were never issues, even with the projector mounted on the roof directly above where I normally sat.
 
2013-02-24 12:23:00 AM  

Ghastly: With the PC, publishers notoriously lie about the minimum specs needed to run a game just to get you to buy it. So you guy your top of the line gaming PC and it runs all the games that came out the month you bought your PC. Then six months down the line your games download a patch to fix bugs and improve content and now your machine struggles a bit to keep up with the demands. Then another six months and you can completely forget about buying any current games because your ancient 1 year old video card is ridiculously underpowered and obsolete everything in your PC is woefully inadequate for running current games and needs to be upgraded. Repeat every year.


Yeah, that's not true anymore.  My current PC is 6 years old, haven't done anything to it except add a couple of hard drives, and it will still play just about anything I throw at it.  Granted, the newer the game is the more likely I will have to turn some of the settings down, but they're all still perfectly playable and at better quality graphics than their console equivalents.  The days of having to upgrade your PC every year to stay current died off when consoles took over the market.  Since most games these days are cross-platform, developers can't push the envelope graphically the way they used to, because console hardware remains the same.  I imagine when the next generation of consoles is out my PC will no longer be able to keep up with current games, but right now my 6 year old rig is currently running Assassin's Creed 3 with no problems.
 
2013-02-24 12:25:43 AM  

dyhchong: The point isn't just gaming.

The point is can you reasonably buy just a console and not have a PC?

Can you reasonably buy just a PC and not have a console?

So regardless, you reasonably need a PC, by having a gaming PC you needn't buy a second PC. But by having a gaming console, you still need to also buy a PC, adding to the cost of ownership of a console.


You're on some serious drugs.  Plenty of people have a PC with no console, AND visa versa.

IF one necessitated the other, you'd then have to budget them together, but because of the wide variety of uses and classes of PC, you can't make that a rule.

Like many people, if you game on a console, your PC needs are pretty negligable.  Word processing and web browsing / email.  That's all people "reasonably" need, and can be obtained quite cheap.  Posting from a 250$ laptop after having played skyrim on 360 all day.

PC's and consoles are two distinct entities with a wide variety of purposes, especially when you figure a mobile laptop into the picture(which, if you were to game on that, it would be doubly expensive), and neither necessitates the other.

I'm not exactly sure why you're so hardcore about not compartmentalizing gaming apart from other computing hobbies or whatever.  All I can figure is that you're a troll, or a wingnut, Poe's Law after all.
 
rpm
2013-02-24 12:26:00 AM  

Repo Man: Just read the box, and you'll generally be fine. And isn't the occasional hardware upgrade part of the fun?


"Read the box" is why a few years ago i decided to stick with consoles instead of going back to PC when I was considering.

"May not work with all DVD drives". Fark that noise.

/Now console and GoG/Humble Bundle.
 
2013-02-24 12:36:20 AM  
Ghastly:
I have a Gamecube. It still runs every Gamecube game. 10 years from now it will still run every Gamecube game. I have an XBox 360. It runs every Xbox 360 game. 10 years from now it will still run every Xbox game. My windows 7 PC won`t run current generation games worth crap because it`s a little over a year old and now considered obsolete. It also won`t run awesome old games like Interstate `76 because Direct X updates and the operating system are not backwards compatible enough to run the game.


You know, oddly enough a decent computer built in 2000 will run all the games released around it's time.  It will continue to do so with those same games...  Almost like...  your gamecube and it's games... and your xbox and it's games.  I've very rarely had a game's patch that increased the system requirements.  This may be the games I personally play.. but I do play a ton of different genres, including games on consoles.  I've had games ruined on my 360 by a patch.  I've had games ruined on my PC from a patch.  Sometimes the patches cause more errors than they fix.  Welcome to software...  But anyway..  The quoted section of your argument is pretty much pointless.  Console games are now getting patches that are screwing them up just like PC's do.

Also, for price point...  I built a PC, complete build except for HD (that was used from an older system) for $950 or so including all taxes and shipping.  It has lasted me 3 years so far and still runs everything, including FarCry3 on high.  No, I can't hit Ultra settings on games anymore but for the most part "ultra" on a PC is a step higher than any console puts out.  I will most likely get another 2-3 years before I have to drop down another step or two, which will put my graphics on par with the current xbox360 level of games.  So after 6 years, maybe longer if I can milk it somehow, I might have to upgrade my video card for $200-250 or so... you know.. instead of spending $600 on an initial console investment, not including extra controllers, memory sticks, headset, whatever, and then another $600 5-10 years later + more for extras...  In my case, my PC is slightly cheaper in the long run, gets me more fun and more usage from games and the other things a PC does way better than a console, such as browsing the net, reading pdf's, editing pictures, etc.

In the end it's all personal preference.  I currently own a PC, xbox360, ps2, NDSi, and a smattering of older consoles I occasionally break out.  Love them all.  I need a WiiU though.
 
2013-02-24 12:39:10 AM  
img191.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-24 12:40:51 AM  

namatad: There is no game but WoW.


11 90s here.

5 rep ground. 1 with AC to go. 5 more pending.

Thundering Isle sound like it's gonna rawk.
 
2013-02-24 12:40:58 AM  

Mr. Fuzzypaws: I'd rather wait 10 minutes for a game to install on my Playstation then spend an hour tracking down drivers. At least I can do it unattended and do something productive while I wait, like whack off or something.


I've rubbed one out to the PS3 download bar many a time
 
2013-02-24 12:42:20 AM  

Virtual Pariah: Is that PC really staying untouched for 5 years?
Or does it get a new videocard in year 3, new OS in years 2 and 4, new HD in year 3, etc etc?
+100.00 or more for office, antivirus and other software not gaming related, but, necessary for the PC experience.
Then add in some cost for a controller unless you never deviate from FPS or RTS. Madden and stuff comes out on PC I believe.
Some things controllers are useful for.

Don't have a preference between platforms, but, the true costs should be called out.


Videocard: I don't need to have bleeding-edge graphics all the time, and while this card isn't top-of-the-line, it's definitely at the prosumer level. It'll last at least three years, but probably longer.

OS: Windows 7 was a little over $100, and I'm sure as hell not going to get into Windows 8. The windows 7 end-of-support lifecycle is Jan 14, 2020 for security critical updates. The general end-of-support date is Jan 12, 2015. Barring some unbelievably killer-app that surfaces between now and 2020, the OS won't need to be replaced for at least another seven years.

Disk drives: I paid a premium for two Intel SSDs because they've got a 5-year warranty. They're also blazing fast, so it's unlikely that I would purchase new storage in that timeframe for any other reason than running out of space. I'm not a digital hoarder though, so I really doubt that'll happen.

Office software: Free through work/school. Not hard to go without if I wanted to (Google Docs, in particular, is a great free alternative that would fit 99% of the average person's use cases, but there are plenty others as well.)

Antivirus: Who pays for antivirus anymore?

Controller: One of the pleasures of PC gaming is not having to use a controller. That said, you could get a nice gamepad for $20 or so, or you could get a 360 controller for about $40.

Other stuff: I bought a top-of-the-line power supply that should last at least five years, if not much longer. Nice big case fans shouldn't have any problem going that long with a bit of regular cleaning. Nothing else on there couldn't be replaced for less than $100. My philosophy is that you pay a little more to get a high quality product to insulate yourself from future risk, so it'd be abnormal for anything to actually break within that time.

My last desktop (which was a stock dell) lasted for 7 years with a minor RAM upgrade and a new video card.  Eventually the motherboard crapped out and it wasn't worth replacing. Got a nice high-end Latitude business-class laptop that's played most of the games I've wanted to do for the last 5 years, and is still serviceable for work/Netflix/Hulu/Pandora/light gaming. It's definitely showing wear, though I've only replaced the battery (was about $50). Those two computers were about 12 years of gaming and general purpose computing for about $2200 in hardware and non-game software over the lifetime of the devices.
 
2013-02-24 12:43:45 AM  
I've always had both a console and a PC. But this generation went on so long that even a budget PC outperforms a 360/PS3 handily. Hell, the machine I'm using right now specs about even with what they debuted for the PS4 this week, save for the GDDR5. Hell, if I pull the dedicated video card out and run the built in on the AMD APU, it's a $500 box. Cheaper than the PS3 was at launch, with damn near 10x the storage space and 16x the RAM.

Skyrim on my PS3 looks like trampled shiat compared to Skyrim on a budget box. Hell, only reason I bought the PS3 version was I wanted it at launch and only had a wimpy laptop at the time. Toss some mods into the mix and the PS3 version really looks awful. Granted, that's a year-old PC vs. the console that's been around 5 times as long. But like I said, I'm already at PS4 spec hardware-wise, and we're 10 months or so from PS4 launch. By that time, this box will likely be converted to NAS or a straight up HTPC and I'll have something better to game with.

I can't really recall how long it's been since I've used my PS3 for anything but Netflix or streaming media from my PC to the TV.  It's likely to move to my 5-year-old's room and lose it's spot in the living room to a Roku. That being said, I'll likely own a PS4 at some point, but in no way will it compete or replace my PC.

And lolz @ the "PC's are dying" folks. You think because tablets became a thing everyone tossed their towers? Maybe you did. The rest of us still use real computers.
 
2013-02-24 12:47:31 AM  
The real failings of consoles is that their price point is no longer an advantage. Let's say you buy a PS4 for $400 this holiday. Judging by the poor workmanship of modern electronics, you will probably find yourself having it replaced after about 2 years. And judging by how they seem to remain at such a high price point, you can expect your replacement unit to cost about $350. Let's just hope this model has all the launch bugs sorted out...

Meanwhile, even mid-range PCs these days seem to have lifespans of 3-5 years before they cannot meet the minimum system requirements. My Acer box cost about $600 nearly 3 years ago, has had no reliability problems whatsoever, and can still play most games released today. The only upgrade I've done is added a video card, and upgraded the power supply by proxy. Simply put, the days of spending $2000 on a PC system just to have it be entirely obsolete within a year are over.

Finally, for that $600, you get far more value for your money as well. You have a piece of hardware that can do limitless computing tasks, and have a limitless catalog of games as well. This includes services like Steam, GOG, and the growing selection of high quality browser games courtesy of the Unity plugin.
 
2013-02-24 12:47:52 AM  

My Brain Hurts: Ghastly:
I have a Gamecube. It still runs every Gamecube game. 10 years from now it will still run every Gamecube game. I have an XBox 360. It runs every Xbox 360 game. 10 years from now it will still run every Xbox game. My windows 7 PC won`t run current generation games worth crap because it`s a little over a year old and now considered obsolete. It also won`t run awesome old games like Interstate `76 because Direct X updates and the operating system are not backwards compatible enough to run the game.


You know, oddly enough a decent computer built in 2000 will run all the games released around it's time.


Not to mention the only thing standing in the way of his current PC being able to play those games is his own lack of knowledge on the subject.

If you want to insert cartridge/disc, play game, shut off machine.... don't use a $2k piece of hardware you don't know how to operate. Enjoy your console and leave the pro gaming to those of us more Glorious.

It's like biatching his lambo doesn't measure up to his ford taurus because he has no clue how to drive the lambo.
 
2013-02-24 12:48:30 AM  

Virtual Pariah: What projector?
I've been thinking of going this route when my TV dies. (should be in the next year or so)

Is it warming up the living room too much? Do you need complete darkness or can you open a window and still see the screen?


Right now I'm using the Optomo HD20 which runs $688 now, it was $829 when I bought it last year.  Projector prices have been dropping awesomely the last decade.  The amount of heat this one puts out doesn't change the room temperature, and the fridge in the connected kitchen (I'm in an apt) is louder than the projector that's mounted on the ceiling behind me.  My <i>last</i> projector, a Planar, was a jet engine in both heat and sound - this one has been fantastic.

Darkness wise you get the best picture from the lowest lighting obviously, but it is playable/readable as long as direct light isn't shining on the surface it's projecting onto.  I usually at least close the blinds when I'm running it.  On the Amazon page are some customer pictures where you can see the picture in less-than-optimal lighting.

The other thing to consider is bulb life and replacement cost.  I used to use my projectors pretty sparingly, only a couple hours at a time, because I didn't want to pay through the nose replacing bulbs.  With this new projector I finally sat and did the math on it and realized that if I ran it every single day, for 8 hours a day, I'd only be replacing the bulb every year and a half.  My "monthly" cost in bulb replacements, even with that unrealistically high amount of use (because really, who has eight free hours a night, every night, to sit and watch movies/play games nowadays), would still only be $8.  Once I realized that I switched to this thing full time.

All in all I highly recommend projectors, though the more you use them the smaller old displays start to feel.  This is going to sound snobbish and I don't mean it to be, but I just can't enjoy epic games/movies like Mass Effect or Skyrim on my old monitors anymore, even though one is 27".  That just feels too small to me now, like someone is blocking part of my view the whole time.

/I typed more than I planned
//zzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
2013-02-24 12:53:04 AM  
you know ... like anything else, you buy the machine that runs the game you want to play.
I bought a PS2 in order to play katamari damacy. TADA. Perfect combination.
As soon as I was done playing it, gave it to my sister's kids. Never needed it again.

but my PC ....
well I use that 24/7/365 and it runs everything else
 
2013-02-24 12:53:25 AM  
Yeah but you have to upgrade your PC every 3 years says the guy who has upgraded to the newest gen Ipad and Iphone at midnight every time apple puts out a new one....


My comp is still running off whatever drivers came with the video card 3 years ago, haven't had to search for new ones yet. I'm surprised noone has said Yeah but I have to make a boot disk and configure my .ini with every new game or w/e the case used to be 20 years ago.
 
2013-02-24 12:53:43 AM  

Hyjamon: traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]

what the hell causes that?


PC gaming.
 
2013-02-24 12:54:32 AM  

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Hell, the machine I'm using right now specs about even with what they debuted for the PS4 this week, save for the GDDR5.


Your average user is not going to hit a bottleneck with DDR3 memory for non-graphics computing tasks, and there's DDR4 available if you really, really need it.

Nice and mid-range PC video cards already use GDDR5, except it's dedicated, so the console still looses this round. I'm not a computer architecture wizard, but my gut instinct is that dedicated DDR3 system and dedicated GDDR5 graphics is better than shared GDDR5 system/graphics. It also means that a nice PC is going to have at least 8GB of system memory and 1-2GB of graphics memory, so a nice current generation PC is in actuality going to have 9-10GB of total memory, and you're going to have a dedicated bus for each.

We don't know the PS4/720 architecture yet, but I'd hate to think that my network stack, OS calls, and just plain application code will have to compete with the graphics card for memory bandwidth. Though really I'd assume they'll have some kind of smart DMA controller or memory segmentation to get around this.
 
2013-02-24 01:00:02 AM  

Lsherm: Also, if you don't want to build a virtual machine to run old games on old OSes, Good Old Games has your back:   http://www.gog.com/gamecard/interstate76   All they do is port old games to new OSes.


Holy crap, I went to check out gog, and seen the Apogee sale. I can't believe I was only 11 when Duke 3D came out. My parents were/are strict Catholics, I have no idea how we convinced them to buy that game for us.
 
2013-02-24 01:02:01 AM  
I read pretty much the entire thread, but I skimmed a little so spare me if I missed this, but from what I understand, as far as a cost argument goes, most of the "PC gamers" who are arguing that the cost isn't much different are all leaving out one thing. A lot of them are saying "I bought Skyrim for the 360 and I just didn't like it on my console, SO I GOT IT FOR PC!" Sorry, but I have a console Nd I buy something once. Sometimes, I trade it in and get a discount or money back (which, if I remember correctly you can't do with computer games.). So to say that the costs are comparable isn't really true if you do both, which very few PC people have said they don't do.
 
2013-02-24 01:09:30 AM  
As far as I can tell, gaming PCs are for shut-ins who want to play 18 hours of some MMO per day, and consoles are for people who otherwise have a life but who want to plug and play some fun games a few hours a week.

Building a pc to play games seems like building a coffee table to play Monopoly on.
 
2013-02-24 01:11:01 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: As far as I can tell, gaming PCs are for shut-ins who want to play 18 hours of some MMO per day, and consoles are for people who otherwise have a life but who want to plug and play some fun games a few hours a week.

Building a pc to play games seems like building a coffee table to play Monopoly on.


ITT: The generation of smartphone and social media users asserts that another demographic is hopelessly addicted to technology and the internet.
 
2013-02-24 01:12:35 AM  
www.gamasutra.com
Sears! You n00bs.
 
2013-02-24 01:13:47 AM  
After mentioning repurposing this machine as a NAS box or HTPC I reminded myself of one of the bigger advantages of the PC. Versatility. I can use a mix of the components I already have and a few new parts and make a new machine with a different purpose. Aside from being what basically amounts to a loud and power-hungry Roku, the PS3 has pretty much reached the end of it's usable life for me. I'm likely to be using the processor and other components in my current desktop for most of the next decade for various things, as I try to do with all of my old hardware. The laptop I bought 2 years ago was hacked up and repurposed into a browser/facebook gamer once the cooling system died (It made for a neat homemade all-in-one pc project and works like a charm with the exposed mobo running nice and cool mounted to the back of the display). There are parts of a machine I built in 2002 still in use around the house... I paid $150 for that AMD 3200+ a decade ago and it's been in near-constant use since then. Currently it lives in the kitchen, and works wonders for keeping me entertained while I'm cooking or cleaning in there (I don't have line-of-sight to the TV from there and I spend 2+ hours a day in the kitchen, easily).

I can ramble on all day, but the jist of it is that I've gotten far more value out of my pc's over the last console generation than I have out of the 360 or PS3. So many possibilities if you know what you're doing.
 
2013-02-24 01:20:43 AM  

traylor: Hyjamon: traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]

what the hell causes that?

PC gaming.


mouse callus.
 
2013-02-24 01:21:14 AM  

Mr. Fuzzypaws: I'd rather wait 10 minutes for a game to install on my Playstation then spend an hour tracking down drivers. At least I can do it unattended and do something productive while I wait, like whack off or something.


Drivers? You're still using Windows XP aren't you?!
 
2013-02-24 01:28:14 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: As far as I can tell, gaming PCs are for shut-ins who want to play 18 hours of some MMO per day, and consoles are for people who otherwise have a life but who want to plug and play some fun games a few hours a week.

Building a pc to play games seems like building a coffee table to play Monopoly on.


PC Gaming is the hot-rodding of the internet era.  Most people can't tinker with cars anymore, so they trick out computers instead.  It's a lot of fun.

I have steadily built mine up over the years because I'm a flight sim guy, but it's a whole lot of cool if you can play Skyrim on three screens at once.  My brother went for six screens, but that's too much.  You can't take it all in unless you're sitting back eight feet.

There's also a fairly justified sense of accomplishment if you build and tinker with your own machine.  You know it inside and out, so you can always fix it, or improve it.  It's a hobby more than anything else.
 
2013-02-24 01:42:37 AM  
Firstly gaming PC's DO NOT cost $2000 unless your doing something very exotic like water cooling or multiple monitor setups. You can build a good one for $1000 easily and after the initial investment you only need a few strategic upgrades to keep the machine up to date. Any quad core processor no matter how old will still do the job.  PC's simply aren't going obsolete as quickly as they use to, my intel Core I7-930 is a 4 year old chip and can still easily handle anything I throw at it and I'm not even going to consider upgrading it for many more years. Any Intel Core I5 or I7 of any generation isn't going to go obsolete for the foreseeable future.Video cards are progressing but only very slowly. Even the lowly 7 year old Geforce 8800 will still run anything but the absolute top end games and run them decently.

I have friends still running core 2 quad Q6600 cpu's with Geforce 8800 video cards and they still do a decent job on anything except top tier shooters. And the sheer depth of games you can find on Steam means PC gaming is so much more diverse. I've spent the last week absolutely addicted to this little gem which plays like a game from the 80's and will run on any computer and it's brilliant. And something as simple as minecraft could not have been created on a console where all you get is the this years sequel to the hit game from 3 years ago. And with steam sales I've got piles of games I still haven't played yet and I only paid $4 each for them.

These days all you really have to do is shell out a couple of hundred dollars every couple of years and you'll be able to run any modern PC game. Is it more expensive than consoles? yes it is but not dramatically more expensive.

Is it worth it? Absolutely!
 
2013-02-24 01:46:42 AM  

bbfreak: Mr. Fuzzypaws: I'd rather wait 10 minutes for a game to install on my Playstation then spend an hour tracking down drivers. At least I can do it unattended and do something productive while I wait, like whack off or something.

Drivers? You're still using Windows XP aren't you?!


XP? I never had any major driver issues with XP unless I was tinkering with video card drivers that were still in beta. Sounds more like window 98 to me.
 
2013-02-24 01:51:47 AM  

aurorous: I have friends still running core 2 quad Q6600 cpu's with Geforce 8800 video cards and they still do a decent job on anything except top tier shooters.


I had a Monster GeForce 8800 GTS for years because it was the first card that supported DirectX 10.  It was a fantastic card - took everything you could throw at it and never crashed the system.  It also kept nVidia working on SLI at the time, so you could really go balls out on some systems.

Then ATI came along with their stupid Eyefinity and that became the new benchmark, then nVidia came out with 3D, and so on, and so on.  I'm OK with two old 5870s in crossfire running a three monitor Eyefinity desktop.  I figure I'll upgrade in another two years, at which point my PC is going to be 6 years old.

I was looking at FTL, is it really that good?  It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.
 
2013-02-24 02:06:31 AM  
Consoles are for people with real life friends.

PC games are for people with internet friends.
 
2013-02-24 02:12:32 AM  

clancifer: "Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.


His quote was a ridiculous "both sides of the fence" statement. A GPU that outperforms a PS4 costs less than $200. A CPU that outperforms PS4 costs less than that. You can build a PC that outperforms PS4 handily for less than $600 if you already have a monitor, and it will be more useful than that PS4. And the NextBox is going to be much less powerful than the PS4, from leaked reports on its GPU. So there's that.

Here's a visual example of what the difference will be on PC versus PS4:
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/unreal-engine-4-not-as-impressive-on-p s4 -as-on-pc-comparison-between-elemental-pc-ps4-demos/

Right now that may not seem like much, however specs on PCs improve over time. Unfortunately, in a closed console like the PS3-PS4-360-Wii U, the hardware will never improve. In a PC, you pop open the case and plug in a new video card.

I'm sure there will be cries of "it's so hard and inconvenient". Well, having done it for 15 years, I can tell you it really isn't that difficult, and many people who start out intimidated quickly become acclimated to it. It's no more difficult than playing legos or putting together Ikea furniture.

PS4 will be a fine little machine, as the Wii U is, as the 720 probably will be (all the bad rumors about used games notwithstanding), however a PC is more versatile, more powerful, and a better price-value proposition.
 
2013-02-24 02:21:15 AM  
img259.imageshack.us

^ The reason PC gaming is better has nothing to do with hardware speed.
 
2013-02-24 02:23:47 AM  

natmar_76: clancifer: "Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.

His quote was a ridiculous "both sides of the fence" statement. A GPU that outperforms a PS4 costs less than $200. A CPU that outperforms PS4 costs less than that. You can build a PC that outperforms PS4 handily for less than $600 if you already have a monitor, and it will be more useful than that PS4. And the NextBox is going to be much less powerful than the PS4, from leaked reports on its GPU. So there's that.

Here's a visual example of what the difference will be on PC versus PS4:
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/unreal-engine-4-not-as-impressive-on-p s4 -as-on-pc-comparison-between-elemental-pc-ps4-demos/

Right now that may not seem like much, however specs on PCs improve over time. Unfortunately, in a closed console like the PS3-PS4-360-Wii U, the hardware will never improve. In a PC, you pop open the case and plug in a new video card.

I'm sure there will be cries of "it's so hard and inconvenient". Well, having done it for 15 years, I can tell you it really isn't that difficult, and many people who start out intimidated quickly become acclimated to it. It's no more difficult than playing legos or putting together Ikea furniture.

PS4 will be a fine little machine, as the Wii U is, as the 720 probably will be (all the bad rumors about used games notwithstanding), however a PC is more versatile, more powerful, and a better price-value proposition.


I actually question that, in terms of price to performance in games.  A console for $399, for example, with ps4 levels of power woudl actually be pretty hard to beat at the same resolutions, for the same money, on a PC.

This is always been due to consoles ability to optimize to hell and back in games.

Granted, you could probably beat the performance with a 6-700 PC, all round, but that's a significant investment over a console.  It's not as well optimize for the living room ether.

And I say that as someone typing this from 1000+ gaming PC.
 
2013-02-24 02:32:08 AM  

Fubini: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Hell, the machine I'm using right now specs about even with what they debuted for the PS4 this week, save for the GDDR5.

Your average user is not going to hit a bottleneck with DDR3 memory for non-graphics computing tasks, and there's DDR4 available if you really, really need it.

Nice and mid-range PC video cards already use GDDR5, except it's dedicated, so the console still looses this round. I'm not a computer architecture wizard, but my gut instinct is that dedicated DDR3 system and dedicated GDDR5 graphics is better than shared GDDR5 system/graphics. It also means that a nice PC is going to have at least 8GB of system memory and 1-2GB of graphics memory, so a nice current generation PC is in actuality going to have 9-10GB of total memory, and you're going to have a dedicated bus for each.

We don't know the PS4/720 architecture yet, but I'd hate to think that my network stack, OS calls, and just plain application code will have to compete with the graphics card for memory bandwidth. Though really I'd assume they'll have some kind of smart DMA controller or memory segmentation to get around this.


Actually, there is a lot of utility to unified memory, if done right, in terms of game performance.  Since the ps4 has an APU, with the CPU and GPU on the same die, having a large poor of shared memory it can device as the game developer sees fit is actually pretty powerful.

APU performance on the pc is pretty iffy, because developers really don't have any optimization for it, nor a real reason to when split ddr/gddr and split cpu/gpu setups are the norm.

Unified works well on a console though.  The Xbox and 360 both had it, iirc, as does the wii U iirc.  Sony used split pools for the ps3 and it really hurt them by the end of the generation.
 
2013-02-24 02:52:23 AM  

GAT_00: I've got 1100W in mine.


What the hell are you running to need 1100W?  Dual Nv690s in SLI?

I have a Core i7 930 Bloomfield with an X58 mainboard, 12GB of DDR3 memory, Nv 560Ti video, one SDD and one spinner all running off of a 380W Seasonic supply.  I can even do a 10% overclock of both the CPU and GPU without stability issues.


Ghastly: The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.


That is a significant benefit of a console.  But I've never had a gaming PC experience the level of obsolescence as quickly as you've described.  Maybe 18 months for a video card, 36 months for the rest of the system.  Surprisingly, I expect to hang onto my Core i7 for another 2 years (5 total) before I look to replace it.  I don't expect the 560Ti to last as long, though.
 
2013-02-24 03:10:01 AM  

Dinjiin: What the hell are you running to need 1100W?  Dual Nv690s in SLI?

I have a Core i7 930 Bloomfield with an X58 mainboard, 12GB of DDR3 memory, Nv 560Ti video, one SDD and one spinner all running off of a 380W Seasonic supply.  I can even do a 10% overclock of both the CPU and GPU without stability issues.


I doubt most people need or could even use 1100 Watts, especially since video cards are using less power while increasing performance.  I have a Bloomfield i7 975, x58, and while it's not a power saving chip, it can draw at most 130 Watts.  Two ATI 5870s can draw 188 Watts max.  Hard drives are drawing less than 12 watts each at full use, and I have six of them.  Throw in a random 100 watts for the motherboard, fans, and cooling system.  So total, for a machine that isn't energy economical, is about 678 watts at full power.  The machine came with a 1000 Watt power supply, but I've never used it all.

The only time I've seen a huge power supply get taxed was in a system a coworker built that used Peltier cooling units attached to water pumps and a radiator.  He couldn't get it to work with less than 1200 Watts, but he added a second PSU simply for cooling so he could overclock without worrying about running out of juice.
 
2013-02-24 03:15:32 AM  

fusillade762: Fubini: FTL

I'm convinced that's a troll game. Got my ass handed to me every time I got to the 2nd boss fight. On EASY. I had to uninstall it because I was concerned I was going to start breaking shiat.
Also another game I can't imagine trying to play with a console controller.


The boss is definitely beatable.  But like any games of that particular style, there is at least SOME measure of sheer luck involved.


Lsherm: I was looking at FTL, is it really that good? It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.


It is simplistic, but I found it entertaining.  Not for a super long time, mind you, but it was at least worth the money.  If you enjoy Roguelikes, anyway, you could try it.  Not like it breaks the bank.
 
2013-02-24 03:18:09 AM  
Try running any kind of flight sim on a console. You can't. You can't use TrackIR, multiple input devices such as pedals, yoke, and stick. Try playing DCS A-10C on a console. There is simply no way it can be done.

/I miss the days of Counterstike when I could easily build and run my own server and mods, and CONTROL who want to play on my server.
//No 10 yr old punk saying how he wants to fark your mom....
 
2013-02-24 03:43:06 AM  

Antimatter: I actually question that, in terms of price to performance in games.  A console for $399, for example, with ps4 levels of power woudl actually be pretty hard to beat at the same resolutions, for the same money, on a PC.

This is always been due to consoles ability to optimize to hell and back in games.

Granted, you could probably beat the performance with a ...


The cost of a PC to do what PS4 will do, not including monitor, is not expensive. A 1.8 TFLOP GPU, a CPU that is not anywhere as powerful as an i5, a motherboard, 8gb RAM. Some extra cost would have to be given due to the 8gb of GDDR 5 ram and a power supply, however you're looking at not much more than $450. Unlike the PS3 and the 360, the PS4 and the 720 are not packing cutting edge hardware. For instance, the PS4 sports an A10 variant AMD mobile CPU, which is a very light affordable chip.

And the PC is far more versatile. It is an open system. It is repairable and upgradable.

"Console efficiency" is also not what it used to be. If you watched Sony's presentation they flat out call PS4 a mini PC. And that's what it is in architecture. It uses an x86 processor. It uses a standard DX11 GPU. Except for its memory architecture, it is just a PC. Once upon a time, when consoles were very customized hardware like back in the SNES days, console efficiency was true. Nowadays, not so much. Yes, the PS4's RAM architecture is nice, however it's not going to allow a 1.8 TFLOP GPU to outperform even a 2.3 TFLOP Ati 6950, high end a couple of years ago.

Microsoft's NextBox is going to be even weaker than that, with a 1.2 TFLOP GPU. Wii U's is a 0.4 TFLOP GPU, though it may perform above that spec due to faster fixed function pathways for processing such as lighting.

What gamers should be looking at is not the hardware. Well, they should be looking at hardware, because it's always good to be informed of facts, but they shouldn't be expecting a repeat of the 360, which was bleeding edge even in comparison to PC at the time (PS3 was not, its GPU was overpriced and its CPU a boondoggle). That's not the business environment we're in today. Microsoft and Sony lost billions on 360 and PS3. That's one of the reasons they delayed the release of their new consoles: PS3 and 360 were still selling, and selling at $150+ profit per hardware sold, these last couple of years. Today is a tougher environment and they're not going to sell loss leaders. In fact, Microsoft seems to be positioning its next system as more a home multimedia center than a game machine.

No, what gamers should be look is the software. Get the system that has the games you want from a company with consumer friendly business practices. It's as simple as that.
 
2013-02-24 04:05:26 AM  

fusillade762: dillenger69: If they'd let me use mouse+keyboard on a console game I'd still switch in a heartbeat. My hate for console controllers is pretty much what keeps me in the PC sphere.

This right here. Absolutely cannot play any FPS with a console controller.


Before I got my new pc I had only played FPS games with a controller. The difference in keyboard+mouse and a controller was amazing the first time I played TF2 on my computer.

Anyways as for a console I have no interest in buying the current gen consoles or the next gen ones. They're just too expensive compared to the cost of upgrades for my pc.
 
2013-02-24 04:18:23 AM  

Lsherm: aurorous: I have friends still running core 2 quad Q6600 cpu's with Geforce 8800 video cards and they still do a decent job on anything except top tier shooters.

I had a Monster GeForce 8800 GTS for years because it was the first card that supported DirectX 10.  It was a fantastic card - took everything you could throw at it and never crashed the system.  It also kept nVidia working on SLI at the time, so you could really go balls out on some systems.

Then ATI came along with their stupid Eyefinity and that became the new benchmark, then nVidia came out with 3D, and so on, and so on.  I'm OK with two old 5870s in crossfire running a three monitor Eyefinity desktop.  I figure I'll upgrade in another two years, at which point my PC is going to be 6 years old.

I was looking at FTL, is it really that good?  It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.


You'll definitely get your value out of it for 5-10 dollars. That said, some people seem to love it, others seem to hate it. Definitely a fun little diversion, and definitely a tactical/strategic game.
 
2013-02-24 04:28:08 AM  
Yuri Futanari : For gaming the KB/M still works great, I have no problems with precision in FPS games thanks to the low/wide couch armrests, and for other stuff I can use the wireless 360 controller if I want.

Remember the Phantom gaming console (I still have one of their E3 t-shirts around here somewhere).

The console itself was basically vaporware, but back in my PC days, I always thought of rolling the PC out to hook it up to the 51" TV (To put things into context, LCD monitors weren't prevalent yet, and if you had a 20" CRT you were ballin.).

Anyway, my idea was to use one of their lapboards (which they actually got to market) but heard that the wireless sucked.

www.wired.com


I actually got to play with one for a few minutes at an E3 long past, the physical design of it worked so well that I'm certain it had to have been farmed out to some other company because I don't see how a smart design like that could have come out of the epic fail that was the Phantom.
 
2013-02-24 04:31:37 AM  

pnjunction: Hah always one of these failtrolls in these threads.


How was I trolling? Trolls are made just to get a rise, I stated my opinion. Just like I think GTA4 is a shiatty game, but people seem to think that's a troll, too.

meh
 
2013-02-24 04:37:08 AM  

Relatively Obscure: fusillade762: Fubini: FTL

I'm convinced that's a troll game. Got my ass handed to me every time I got to the 2nd boss fight. On EASY. I had to uninstall it because I was concerned I was going to start breaking shiat.
Also another game I can't imagine trying to play with a console controller.

The boss is definitely beatable.  But like any games of that particular style, there is at least SOME measure of sheer luck involved.


Lsherm: I was looking at FTL, is it really that good? It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.

It is simplistic, but I found it entertaining.  Not for a super long time, mind you, but it was at least worth the money.  If you enjoy Roguelikes, anyway, you could try it.  Not like it breaks the bank.


I thought there was a decent level of strategic and tactical depth to the game... I found the seat-of-the-pants aspect the most entertaining. Each run you get a pretty limited selection of crew and equipment that you can choose from, and you kind of have to cobble together something that works with what you're given. If you set out on a game with a specific build in mind, maybe only 50% of the time would you even get close to everything you want- so you have to be pretty flexible, especially if you want to have a hope of killing the boss.

I also felt that the depth of the simulation added a lot to the game. It was a lot of fun to combo different types of attacks to multiply the effectiveness, like forcing your enemies into fire-filled rooms full of your own fire-immune crew members, or tactically decompressing your enemies ship, or tactically decompressing your own ship.
 
2013-02-24 04:50:04 AM  
If you are reading this, no matter your opinion, you are wasting your life.
 
2013-02-24 04:56:21 AM  

MrEricSir: [img259.imageshack.us image 425x362]

^ The reason PC gaming is better has nothing to do with hardware speed.


A mouse. How quaint.
 
2013-02-24 05:29:23 AM  
Coming from the developers of Crysis 3... an FPS game. A type of game of which there are so many that it becomes difficult to even distinguish them apart. Make it as pretty you want, it's an FPS game, those are a dime a damn dozen.

Tell you what Crysis 3 making tool... You admit that your game is about as original and innovative as a comic book character losing their parents and I'll admit that better graphics don't make better games.
 
2013-02-24 05:40:45 AM  

Fubini: I just built a very nice gaming PC during the black Friday season for about $1000, and it's
-snip-
DCS A10-C - $20 - not available
-snip-


In case you didn't know, DCS moved everything over to DCS World. I think that you need to make sure that you have run the Steam version at least once. Just install DCS World and then look under the modules section for the files for A10-C. They also throw in the Su-25T for free to fly as well. You can uninstall the steam version to save on disk space after you move to world.
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?scr=product&ProductI d= 21&end_pos=137&lang=en
 
2013-02-24 05:45:11 AM  
randomjsa: and I'll admit that better graphics don't make better games.

But better graphics DO make better games.

Saying that better graphics doesn't make a game better is a lie, the question is though, how much better.

It's a case of diminishing returns, and graphics is just one part of the multitude of things that go into an awesome game. A big enough deficit in any number of areas will kill a game flat out for some people.

// Is your music so crappy and grating that people stab their eardrums with chopsticks to make the pain end?
Do your graphics look like viewed through a pair of sandblasted sunglasses?
Does your AI cheat like a robber baron cheats on his taxes.
Does your control scheme cause people to summon demons as a side effect of the finger movements you put them through?
 
2013-02-24 05:47:15 AM  

randomjsa: Coming from the developers of Crysis 3... an FPS game. A type of game of which there are so many that it becomes difficult to even distinguish them apart. Make it as pretty you want, it's an FPS game, those are a dime a damn dozen.

Tell you what Crysis 3 making tool... You admit that your game is about as original and innovative as a comic book character losing their parents and I'll admit that better graphics don't make better games.


Depends on how you do it.  The Crysis people are making an engine like the Unreal or Half Life engines.  Doom 3 was just an engine demo, but a shiatty game.  ID Software is losing the battle because the Doom3 engine wasn't used in enough games.

Dishonered was built on the Unreal 3 engine, and it was a great game.  Far Cry 3 is based off a modified Crytek engine, and it's a great game.  Both are FPS.  The upcoming Bioshock Infinite is based off a modified Unreal 3 engine.

There are great FPS's out there for consoles and PC's.
 
2013-02-24 05:54:16 AM  
I've seen a lot of misinformation in this thread.

I bought a PC in June 2008 that was slightly above average, but not a "high-end" PC. Including the video card, I spent about 1k on it. Late last year marked the first time that I could not purchase a game because my computer didn't meet the minimum specs (War of the Roses requires a stronger graphics card). There is no "hunting down drivers" or messing with files to get things working. I download from Steam just as quickly as somebody downloads from PSN, and jump right into the game. So, the computer went 4 years running any game that I wanted perfectly, and it can still play almost any game.

In the mean time, I very often get games for ~$10 on the PC, where console games stick around $50 at all times, unless you buy used, and then you have to worry about the disk being scratched or messed up in some way. No such trouble with digital downloads.

And for the price, $1,000 is not crazy expensive compared to the $400 for consoles, given that my computer is used for a lot more than gaming. Factor in the cheaper game prices, and it works out to about the same price in the long run, so the price isn't even the issue. So, like I said, a lot of misinformation around here.
 
2013-02-24 06:10:39 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Anybody that uses fanboy or the even dumber alternate spelling deserves an ass whipping in a gravel parking lot.


That will never happen. Fanboys are pussies.
 
2013-02-24 06:37:12 AM  

Lsherm: I was looking at FTL, is it really that good?  It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.


It is that good. And it is simplistic.
 
2013-02-24 06:37:40 AM  

randomjsa: Tell you what Crysis 3 making tool... You admit that your game is about as original and innovative as a comic book character losing their parents and I'll admit that better graphics don't make better games.


They make the game to sell the engine for other companies to make innovative (and better looking) games.
How good their game looks is currently held back by eight year old hardware.

Fact of the matter is that personal computers evolve faster, giving you more power to build on.
...But consoles sell better, giving you more money to make games with.

So the result is you get A list titles on old chips VS new hardware with the best innovations.

I think the near future will be decided by who does download content best and how Rift and Valve hardware pan out.
If all three factors start coming to fruition, how we buy and play games is going to change drastically.
 
2013-02-24 06:55:07 AM  

Without Fail: Peter von Nostrand: Anybody that uses fanboy or the even dumber alternate spelling deserves an ass whipping in a gravel parking lot.

That will never happen. Fanboys are pussies.


They might not have a choice. Quite often people will talk in person like they do on the internet. By then it might be too late.
 
2013-02-24 07:15:14 AM  

bob_ross: The problem being price for one show me a $299 PC that can run a game that looks as good as the PS3 version.  And two, developers know exact hardware they are developing for 100% of the time, they can optimize coding.

Besides PC games aren't really fun or innovative most of the time.  OOHHH ANOTHER FPS!!! YEAH!! *yawn*


wow what a troll post, couldn't be more opposite from the truth, as far as $60 retail games go the vast majority of good ps3/360 games this past generation were shooters, compared to the xbox/ps2 generation it was really really stale and old and one of the many reasons i got back into wii/pc

as for console vs. pc, obviously this will be the case regardless of price too simply because the manufacturers are limited by profitability, simplicity, wattage & cooling

ie: the wii u's cpu is likely underclocked to limit the amount of wattage and cooling needed, so you get a console that's a little more capable than a ps3/360 largely due to more modern components but doesn't bridge that gap as well because they limited power consumption so the thing wouldn't overheat like launch ps3/360's did en masse

there's also general architecture, ps4 using gddr5 for system ram is already a hinderence for cpu tasks even if the architecture is simpler to code for

and then there's the general advancement/progress of technology, ddr4 will start being available next year for system ram and better graphics cards are always on the way, the only limiting factor for a pc is wattage which is why gaming pc's are commonly atx towers so you can fit a powerful enough power supply
 
2013-02-24 07:16:48 AM  

traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]


I don't have that because my desk is big and mousepad sits far away from the edge.

But.. My Allsop Redmond mouse pad I bought over 5 years ago has its own badge of PC Master Race glory.  That was once a shiny metal finish.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-24 07:20:07 AM  
www.cameronnewland.com

Bow before me console gamer scum.
 
2013-02-24 07:42:42 AM  

styckx: traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]

I don't have that because my desk is big and mousepad sits far away from the edge.

But.. My Allsop Redmond mouse pad I bought over 5 years ago has its own badge of PC Master Race glory.  That was once a shiny metal finish.


I keep my keyboard in my lap and mouse/pad on the arm of my recliner. It's home.
 
2013-02-24 08:05:15 AM  
PC gamer here. I'm happy to co-exist with console gamers. But somebody needs to remind game developers that we still exist.

Damnit, I still want RDR for PC! Til then, Rockstar can kiss my white ass.
 
2013-02-24 08:32:26 AM  
I don't understand these little wars. I like games. Console games, PC games, tabletop games, board games, even phone games. Can't we all just play along?
 
2013-02-24 08:34:12 AM  
See, PC gamers drive like THIS, but console gamers drive like THIS.

Got my gaming start on consoles but Steam got me back into the PC fold. Part of that though is that for work reasons I have a pretty beefy rig at home that wasn't intended for gaming, but it can run most modern stuff. I've never bothered to have a PC above the $400 off-the-shelf WalMart Dells before this because I never did much with them beyond coding and browsing and media, part of that is because I don't like trying to untangle all the different processors and graphics cards and mobos and ask for advice on various sites and check specs and alternate rigs and getting the best stuff from "last year"... I know that's playtime for a lot of folks but it sort of stresses me out and then I always still feel like I overpaid.

I think I'll still go with console for primary, PC for auxiliary. But every platform has exclusives worth mentioning.
 
2013-02-24 08:34:43 AM  
As a mainly PC gamer one thing I like about consoles being the primary target for developers is it has leveled off increasing system requirements. A 6 year old core 2 quad and an 8800GT can still run many of todays games at reduced settings.
 
2013-02-24 08:39:51 AM  
Signs a person hasn't played games on a PC in about a decade. They say things like:

Yea, but your graphics card is out of date every year! Have fun upgrading!!
I don't want to search for drivers. I want to just put the game in and play!
I'd rather spend $200 for a console than $2000 for a PC!
Whatever I want to play watching the games on my TV instead of my tiny monitor!
I hate using a mouse and keyboard for games


None of these things have been true for 5-10 years but some people can't admit it.
 
2013-02-24 09:08:40 AM  

Carth: Signs a person hasn't played games on a PC in about a decade. They say things like:

Yea, but your graphics card is out of date every year! Have fun upgrading!!
I don't want to search for drivers. I want to just put the game in and play!
I'd rather spend $200 for a console than $2000 for a PC!
Whatever I want to play watching the games on my TV instead of my tiny monitor!
I hate using a mouse and keyboard for games


None of these things have been true for 5-10 years but some people can't admit it.


^ So much this
 
2013-02-24 09:10:37 AM  

bob_ross: The problem being price for one show me a $299 PC that can run a game that looks as good as the PS3 version.  And two, developers know exact hardware they are developing for 100% of the time, they can optimize coding.

Besides PC games aren't really fun or innovative most of the time.  OOHHH ANOTHER FPS!!! YEAH!! *yawn*


1. Developers don't have to know. That's what all that shiat like DirectX is all about. You develop against DirectX and that abstracts the hardware layer. It works very well. And I'm pretty sure that even with PS3, you code against libraries, because you can bet that Sony like to keep their options open about swapping out bits of hardware.

2. You are joking. The great thing about PC gaming is that you have people still making weird games because the barriers to entry are low and the freedom is high. Want to make a PS3 game? First, you need to hand Sony $2000 for the SDK, jump through a bunch of legal hurdles, then you either need to manufacture it as a game, or trust that Sony allow it onto the PSN. What does World of Goo run on? What does Minecraft run on?
 
2013-02-24 09:14:37 AM  

jake_lex: Shostie: I don't think anyone who buys a console wants it to out-perform a PC. They just want a machine they can play games on without a whole lot of hassle.

This.  I don't want to buy a game, get it home, and discover my computer's video card is out of date after I've opened the box, thus making it impossible for me to return the software.


They are not talking about people who buy there PC's at walmart.  They are talking about people who take the time to know what they are getting beforehand.  If you didnt know what kind of video card you had before opening the box, you fall into the first group, and frankly should have a console system instead.
 
2013-02-24 09:18:38 AM  
Fubini:
Terraria - $3 - 151hrs (secret shame)
There is no shame in that my brother.  It is a glorious little game, I bought it when it came out, put about the same time into it, and recently reinstalled it so i can beat the new content.
 
2013-02-24 09:19:20 AM  
$900 PC I bought just over a year ago runs Skyrim on ultra with HD textures, I can't imagine anything coming out that's going to push those limits any time soon.

I like my xbox too, though.  Just not for certain games.
 
2013-02-24 09:25:53 AM  

Arthen: If you are reading this, no matter your opinion, you are wasting your life.


Hey now!

I'm drunk and wasting my life, TYVM.

/rum: Sunday brunch of champions
 
2013-02-24 09:27:03 AM  

d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net


Consoles:
* No need for constant expensive upgrades
* Integrated hardware between CPU and video tends to be faster than even some high-range PCs for the first few years
* Even at the end of its life, a modern console still has killer graphics and sound, almost on par with the latest PC graphics (ie: latest Devil May Cry vs. Crysis 3)
* Comes with dual stick controller, which just works better for some games (third person, puzzle, action)
* Less occurrence of cheating
* No driver bullshiat or configuration required
* Consoles are just more popular than PC gaming, so the community is larger

PC Gaming:
* Capable of being at the top of the graphics food chain
* Comes with mouse/keyboard, which just works better for some games (FPS, complex strategy, MMO, flight sims)
* More customizability and access to mods
* Steam tends to be on top of the market value for PC gaming (though, consoles will wise up soon enough)
* Many games start out as PC games, so there's a greater access to some types of games (esp indies)
* Greater access to where you can play them (laptops in the car, for example)

Why argue? Why have this war? Everybody should know these points and just acknowledge that both have their pros and cons. I play games on both. I also play games on my phone, which is absent in this debate. Or my NDS.
 
2013-02-24 09:54:11 AM  
The PC is dying. Tablets and smartphones reign supreme.  You PC retards are going to push the App Game revolution. You must be proud.
 
2013-02-24 10:34:19 AM  

dyhchong: GAT_00: I'll say what I said last time we did this: PC markets will never die because games like Crusader Kings will never work on consoles, and there's plenty of market for grand strategy games.

Relatively Obscure: JUST got my first PC that could qualify as high..ish.. end. It's lovely, but the price tag was not.

Did you buy it assembled or build it yourself?  I have an 8GB RAM system, 1GB GeForce 460 SE card, and a 6 core, 3.2GB processor.  Admittedly the RAM is a bit slower, I think it's 1333 RAM, but I still only spent 1K on all that.

Stop, just stop.

Anyway, for Console Gamers, do you also own a PC? How much did you pay for that? Add that cost to your console because you still own a PC regardless.

For me, I stay just behind the curve and thus pay almost nothing. My HD 6870 is still going strong, plays everything new at 1080 on high settings, and I got it for $180(NZD, about 130/140USD) two years ago. Coupled with a 2500K.

I have it attached to dual monitors on a desk, which wraps around through HDMI to a 50" 1920x1080 screen facing the couch, where I have an Xbox 360 wireless controller dongle hidden. I don't have to search for Drivers. Software doesn't use drivers. And if I do add new hardware, Windows automatically finds the drivers for me unless I want the latest GPU drivers (which I'm too lazy to install, yet still don't have any issues with games).

I have Steam installed, where I pay a pittance for games, especially during a sale and everything just works whilst keeping itself updated.

I can play every common/uncommon file format. I can centralise all my data and access with ease. I can also do my work on this computer.


You mean you have... a general-purpose computing device?

i21.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-24 10:44:51 AM  

abadabba: A 6 year old core 2 quad and an 8800GT can still run many of todays games at reduced settings.


I can vouch for that.  Although I'm running a core 2 duo, not a quad.  At the time very few games were optimized to take advantage of four cores and I couldn't justify the extra expense with my budget.  If I'd gone for a quad core I wouldn't have been able to afford my overclocked 8800GT, which is still running like a champ.  I think I made the right call there.

In fact I can play most new games on medium settings, although I haven't tried Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 yet.  Only game I can remember having to really dial the settings down for was LA Noire, but that could just be Rockstar doing a half-ass job optimizing the PC port - again.

Nemo's Brother: The PC is dying. Tablets and smartphones reign supreme.  You PC retards are going to push the App Game revolution. You must be proud.


Worst troll attempt ever.

-3/10
/that's right, it was so bad you've had points taken away.
//I imagine you're in the red now
 
2013-02-24 10:44:59 AM  

Frothy Panties: /I miss the days of Counterstike when I could easily build and run my own server and mods, and CONTROL who want to play on my server.




I still play CoD4 for that reason.
 
2013-02-24 11:05:31 AM  

SwingDancer: jake_lex: Shostie: I don't think anyone who buys a console wants it to out-perform a PC. They just want a machine they can play games on without a whole lot of hassle.

This.  I don't want to buy a game, get it home, and discover my computer's video card is out of date after I've opened the box, thus making it impossible for me to return the software.

They are not talking about people who buy there PC's at walmart.  They are talking about people who take the time to know what they are getting beforehand.  If you didnt know what kind of video card you had before opening the box, you fall into the first group, and frankly should have a console system instead.


personally i hope the desktop PC evolves hardware-wise to the point where the CPU is just a rack of plug-in components, got a new CPU? plug it in and go, got a new GPU? same, there's very little that stands in the way of the component-based desktop PC from being the dominant desktop except that most people are scared to open their CPU and plug in wires or unscrew things
 
2013-02-24 11:06:27 AM  

Neondistraction: abadabba: A 6 year old core 2 quad and an 8800GT can still run many of todays games at reduced settings.

I can vouch for that.  Although I'm running a core 2 duo, not a quad.  At the time very few games were optimized to take advantage of four cores and I couldn't justify the extra expense with my budget.  If I'd gone for a quad core I wouldn't have been able to afford my overclocked 8800GT, which is still running like a champ.  I think I made the right call there.

In fact I can play most new games on medium settings, although I haven't tried Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 yet.  Only game I can remember having to really dial the settings down for was LA Noire, but that could just be Rockstar doing a half-ass job optimizing the PC port - again.

Nemo's Brother: The PC is dying. Tablets and smartphones reign supreme.  You PC retards are going to push the App Game revolution. You must be proud.

Worst troll attempt ever.

-3/10
/that's right, it was so bad you've had points taken away.
//I imagine you're in the red now


Funny, my 7-year old console has no problem playing LA Noire.

Old PCs are great if you don't want to play the most recent games? That would be like buying a PS3 lite and knowing no game made after 2010 would work.YAY!

/go back to your space marines and angry birds
 
2013-02-24 11:10:55 AM  

blue_2501: [d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net image 265x310]
Consoles:
* No need for constant expensive upgrades
* Integrated hardware between CPU and video tends to be faster than even some high-range PCs for the first few years
* Even at the end of its life, a modern console still has killer graphics and sound, almost on par with the latest PC graphics (ie: latest Devil May Cry vs. Crysis 3)
* Comes with dual stick controller, which just works better for some games (third person, puzzle, action)
* Less occurrence of cheating
* No driver bullshiat or configuration required
* Consoles are just more popular than PC gaming, so the community is larger

PC Gaming:
* Capable of being at the top of the graphics food chain
* Comes with mouse/keyboard, which just works better for some games (FPS, complex strategy, MMO, flight sims)
* More customizability and access to mods
* Steam tends to be on top of the market value for PC gaming (though, consoles will wise up soon enough)
* Many games start out as PC games, so there's a greater access to some types of games (esp indies)
* Greater access to where you can play them (laptops in the car, for example)

Why argue? Why have this war? Everybody should know these points and just acknowledge that both have their pros and cons. I play games on both. I also play games on my phone, which is absent in this debate. Or my NDS.


the irony here is most arguments about tech are started by people listing pros/cons

a better way to put it is a device for every need, for every market in the world providing more options is seen as a great thing... you wouldn't want to walk into a restaurant or a car dealership and there be only 1 item/car model right? similarly, monopolies suck when there's no choices (re: ISP's) so the idea that tech hardware needs to be a winner-takes-all market is unhealthy and would probably lead to a general decline

that said, it's tech, and tech geeks love to argue about stuff like this, it's more fun than arguing about politics, so it's fairly harmless (except smartphone wars, that shiat can goto hell)
 
2013-02-24 11:14:16 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Neondistraction: abadabba: A 6 year old core 2 quad and an 8800GT can still run many of todays games at reduced settings.

I can vouch for that.  Although I'm running a core 2 duo, not a quad.  At the time very few games were optimized to take advantage of four cores and I couldn't justify the extra expense with my budget.  If I'd gone for a quad core I wouldn't have been able to afford my overclocked 8800GT, which is still running like a champ.  I think I made the right call there.

In fact I can play most new games on medium settings, although I haven't tried Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 yet.  Only game I can remember having to really dial the settings down for was LA Noire, but that could just be Rockstar doing a half-ass job optimizing the PC port - again.

Nemo's Brother: The PC is dying. Tablets and smartphones reign supreme.  You PC retards are going to push the App Game revolution. You must be proud.

Worst troll attempt ever.

-3/10
/that's right, it was so bad you've had points taken away.
//I imagine you're in the red now

Funny, my 7-year old console has no problem playing LA Noire.

Old PCs are great if you don't want to play the most recent games? That would be like buying a PS3 lite and knowing no game made after 2010 would work.YAY!

/go back to your space marines and angry birds


you must not be very excited for the ps4 then, as literally nothing you own will run on it
 
2013-02-24 11:53:12 AM  
This is my favorite internet b*tch fight.

"The way I waste time and get a false feeling of accomplishment is better than the way you do it!"
 
2013-02-24 11:53:23 AM  
My computer can play ps1 games.
 
2013-02-24 12:06:46 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: As far as I can tell, gaming PCs are for shut-ins who want to play 18 hours of some MMO per day, and consoles are for people who otherwise have a life but who want to plug and play some fun games a few hours a week.

Building a pc to play games seems like building a coffee table to play Monopoly on.


Some people like to combine their hobbies. For instance someone who likes to build furniture AND play board games. Others like to buy a coffee table with a built-in monopoly board so they don't have to get the board out every time they want to play. Of course, they have to deal with the possibility of condensation rings on their playing board, where someone who puts the board away when they are done doesn't have that problem.

Diff'rent strokes as they say.
 
2013-02-24 12:20:23 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.cameronnewland.com image 500x481]

Bow before me console gamer scum.


I was told by my grandson that if I wanted to have a really high end fast gaming rig, to buy one of those for 4k.

Instead I looked at their hardware configuration and bought the parts through newegg/pricegrabber for around 1k.
 
2013-02-24 12:21:15 PM  
Quick question: I have an AMD Athlon II x4 635 at 2.9 GHz I think, and was wondering if my system could run games that require at least a Phenom, such as newer COD titles and Planetside 2?
 
2013-02-24 12:24:20 PM  

The Muthaship: This is my favorite internet b*tch fight.

"The way I waste time and get a false feeling of accomplishment is better than the way you do it!"



My favorite is the hex map vs square map and chit arguments from avalon hill gamers.
 
2013-02-24 12:26:27 PM  

Mentalpatient87: styckx: traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]

I don't have that because my desk is big and mousepad sits far away from the edge.

But.. My Allsop Redmond mouse pad I bought over 5 years ago has its own badge of PC Master Race glory.  That was once a shiny metal finish.

I keep my keyboard in my lap and mouse/pad on the arm of my recliner. It's home.


It's good to see I am not the only one that partakes in the ultimate gaming experience.
 
2013-02-24 12:45:45 PM  

Lsherm: Fubini: Far Cry 3 - Free vs$ 60

I am loving Far Cry 3.  I had to pay $30 for it though.  When were they offering it for free?


Probably got it with the AMD video card bundle, since the other two free titles in his list were with the three I got.

While his list is accurate, it's also a bit disingenuous.  He's comparing sale prices and bundle freebies to retail prices for console games, and ignoring resale on top of it.  If you're willing to cherry-pick to that degree, you could make the outcome completely the opposite by just picking different games to compare.

Hell, just by waiting until today, his list changes.  Borderlands 2, for example, is back to $60 on Steam, but is available for $55 retail for the 360.  The retail copy will have a resale value when you finish, leaving its net cost somewhere below $55, while the Steam copy is non-transferrable.
 
2013-02-24 01:00:32 PM  

clancifer: "Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.


not if microsoft has anything to do with it.  Ever owned a COD game?  Have you tried playing it AFTER the release of the newest title in the series?  Funny how performance issues crop up overnight.  Usually after a forced update.  Microsoft are masters at planned obsolescense.  Your (and my) 360 will be a brick in +/- 4 years, even though the games and hardware is MORE than enough for anyone who cut their teeth on the NES/SEGA generation.

/Bastards.  Where do I get the '720' anyway?
 
2013-02-24 01:18:30 PM  

Giltric: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.cameronnewland.com image 500x481]

Bow before me console gamer scum.

I was told by my grandson that if I wanted to have a really high end fast gaming rig, to buy one of those for 4k.

Instead I looked at their hardware configuration and bought the parts through newegg/pricegrabber for around 1k.


I got an Area 51 ALX at the Dell outlet store for $1400.  Best money I ever spent, because while Alienware might be overpriced, occasionally they do cool shiat like this:

img22.imageshack.us

the SATA drive array is on the side of the case, and drives just snap in and out.  It's teh awesome.  Long after this machine is toast as far as gaming, it's going to sit and be a media server for my whole house.  It's doing that already.
 
2013-02-24 01:49:48 PM  

gopher321: Bought a HP high-end machine a couple years ago. If you know anything about HPs, you know they are severely underpowered - damn thing came with a 150W p/s...I swapped that out with a nice Corsair, bought a decent video nVidia, boosted the RAM to 16GB and I'm laughing.

Haven't had a console since the 1980s. There's just no point.


You buy a pc, then you buy a PS, a new video card and additional RAM? Why not buy they parts. Not paying for a video card and a power supply you aren't going to use is bound to save you money.

gingerjet: jakepowers: $2000 PC or $500 Playstation/$300 Xbox?

It seems pretty clear to me which will be more popular

I didn't bother reading the article but THIS.

/the PC is dying


For 600 euro I can build a PC which will be perfectly capable of running future games on console quality video. I will also be able to do tons of other stuff with it and an upgrade can be performed if deemed necessary. There is no reason what so ever for a gamer to buy a US$2000 computer. My PC was roughly €800 last year and I can run the newest games on the highest quality settings. I'm willing to bet that it will also be able to keep competing against consoles in the foreseeable future.

/Except for bragging rights obviously
//I'll see if I am correct about future games if I get some console port
 
2013-02-24 02:21:11 PM  
I play both but generally speaking the games that treat you like a "gamer" are on the PC. I have a PC and an Xbox and play them about equally. I love my Xbox for playing a no brain shooter like halo and them ill use my PC for some SWTOR action.

In fact, the only genre I don't play is "sports" because they are always glitched and all around shiatty games.
 
2013-02-24 03:39:32 PM  
I get a kick out of all this, "Why should I spend $1000 on a PC when I can get the same games on a $300 console?"

If you're willing to give up the mouse/keyboard/etc and live with the lower graphics, that's your choice. But know this, when these consoles hit the market they aren't going to be $300. A more reasonable figure is $600-$700 for the first 2 years of their life.

And while there's a good chance they can match PC graphics when they come out, they will slip further and further behind because they are locked in time. Optimization helps extend it's life but like the current generation consoles, eventually the resolutions and textures will be massively downgraded and the gun models expanded just to run a game at mediocre FPS.
 
2013-02-24 03:53:36 PM  

Nemo's Brother: The PC is dying. Tablets and smartphones reign supreme.  You PC retards are going to push the App Game revolution. You must be proud.

The tablet / smartphone thing is the new shiny toy of the netbook/hometheatre crowd of toy consumers.   These are the adult versions of tickle-me-elmo and beanie babies.   PC's long term will steal a few of the nice features and the rest will be discarded.  Yes 5 years from now you, and every other non-luddite in the world will have a palm siaze communications device to transmit our thoughts to whom ever we want almost everywhere.  It will have a nice screen on it probably touch screen (I actually really hope that a near touch screen gesture system is perfected I'm tired of smudges.) we will be able to talk on it. and it will most likely have either integrated or as an option a moderately sized full keypad.  It will watch silly videos and movies from online and play games that are not super in-depth or system demanding that some people will get seriously way to into

At home everyone will have a considerably more powerful productivity/heavy system that will be configured to do more in-depth and productive things.unless you are once again a Luddite.  Now here is where things get interesting.  That heavy system will have a few pages of technical documents somewhere that 1 in 5 people will bother to read.  Those tell you hey you can easily configure this with a simple cheap peice of hardware to link to you large monitor and to your little handheld, and to your video game machine and to your spouses handheld, and well just about any device you want.

Most will only hook up a small number of those into conjunction but a few will and in doing so will become amazing people,  In my case it will probably mean that I get to go to federal prison for making copywrited content  I got for free, (from downloading the orbital coms  feed its only lightly scrambled.) widely available. That said its really rather interesting how I can even now be reasonably expected to access fairly high speed internet anywhere at any time (rural land not counted.)
 
2013-02-24 04:52:59 PM  
i970.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-24 05:27:44 PM  
Well I'm personally waiting for the next-gen of consoles to be announced.  Once their spec's are known we can see how well things stand up.

To quote the CEO of Sony America, the day after the alleged PS4 announcement:   No specifications have been finalised.

Once the device stops being fictitious then we'll throw it in the ring.
 
2013-02-24 05:30:16 PM  

clancifer: "Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.


That's workstation prices.  You can build a PC that out performs the 360 for about the same amount as the PS3 was at launch.  Which was equally true when the PS3 launched as well.

The £2k - £3k price point is often bandied around by people looking at places like Alienware and thinking that's what they need to play PC games.
 
2013-02-24 05:44:09 PM  
People will spend 1k on a laptop to do work on and another couple hundred on a console...why not spend all of it on the laptop and play games with it?
 
2013-02-24 06:36:50 PM  

raygundan: While his list is accurate, it's also a bit disingenuous.  He's comparing sale prices and bundle freebies to retail prices for console games, and ignoring resale on top of it.  If you're willing to cherry-pick to that degree, you could make the outcome completely the opposite by just picking different games to compare.


I would argue it's a valid comparison because Steam sales happen at least once every few months, while the only 360 sale I'm aware of ever happening are the black Friday deals. I've never had to wait more than 3 or 4 months for a PC game (that I wanted) to go on sale for 30-50% off retail. You can feasibly delay buying a game to wait for a sale on PC, but you can't really do that for console games.

I also explicitly pointed out that I had to spend an additional $100 on a GPU to get the freebie games, but I still come out with an effective sale price for three brand-new PC titles of something like 33-40% off retail (assume I got the three freebies for $100 versus $150-180 retail). On top of all that, I got a much better GPU, so you can either consider the better GPU as free, or the games as free. When was the last time you saw a console games bundle that genuinely made you feel like you were getting a deal?

You're also fooling yourself if you think that next-gen console games are going to have any resale value. If they do at all, it's going to be some kind of gimped half-game that you might be able to sell to a friend for 5-20 dollars, and someplace like Gamestop is going to give you 1-5 for it.
 
2013-02-24 07:51:07 PM  

Vaneshi: That's workstation prices.  You can build a PC that out performs the 360 for about the same amount as the PS3 was at launch.  Which was equally true when the PS3 launched as well.

The £2k - £3k price point is often bandied around by people looking at places like Alienware and thinking that's what they need to play PC games.


PC gaming reminds me of other areas like fine wine and expensive meat. You can buy fillet steak from a supermarket. It'll be OK. Go to a butcher, pay a little more, it's probably worth it. You can, if you want get wagyu fillet steak, although hiring a couple of escorts for an hour is probably cheaper. Most people will decline. Some people are so crazy about food, they'll buy it.

Likewise gaming. You can spend £300 on a 3GB graphics card. It'll allow you to have 3 monitors and a super frame rate, or you can spend £50 on a 1GB graphics card and run 2 monitors. Some people are so into gaming that £300 is worth it to them. But the gaming on a £50 card is still pretty damn sweet. A few years ago, that was the cutting edge.

To be honest, £450-500 is what you need for a good gaming PC. That's like 1GB of gfx, 8GB of RAM, an i5 processor. Personally, I'm still on an Athlon X2, although I have a 1GB graphics card.
 
2013-02-24 09:28:31 PM  

Giltric: People will spend 1k on a laptop to do work on and another couple hundred on a console...why not spend all of it on the laptop and play games with it?




Because its complicated.

We're dealing with two different kinds of users. One is the technically capable who would buy a high end pc and use Netflix or steam rather than buying physical media or pay for cable. The other is the kind who really can't be bothered with all that. They want to shove a disk in the machine and reap entertainment for minimal effort.

Pc games are (were) written for power users. Full of configurations that needed to be made, no automated servers, and lots of burden on the user to keep their hardware and software up to spec.
Consoles represent the opposite of that, and its been a profitable difference.

The only way I see to match the two markets is to make a pc and software that's easier to manage. But its going to come at the cost of power users who take their market elsewhere.
Result is there will probably always be a divide.
 
2013-02-24 09:33:48 PM  

Giltric: People will spend 1k on a laptop to do work on and another couple hundred on a console...why not spend all of it on the laptop and play games with it?


Because I'm not poor.
 
2013-02-24 11:01:43 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Funny, my 7-year old console has no problem playing LA Noire.

Old PCs are great if you don't want to play the most recent games? That would be like buying a PS3 lite and knowing no game made after 2010 would work.YAY!

/go back to your space marines and angry birds


I didn't have a problem playing it, I just had to turn the settings down lower than I do for most other games.  Learn to read.

Now I'm going to go back to playing Assassins Creed 3 (which is newer than LA Noire), which I'm running at a higher resolution and smoother frame rate than a PS3 can.
 
2013-02-24 11:07:51 PM  

Neondistraction: Now I'm going to go back to playing Assassins Creed 3


Any good?  I got it for free with my GPU, and I haven't even touched it yet.
 
2013-02-24 11:14:58 PM  

TiiiMMMaHHH: clancifer: "Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.

not if microsoft has anything to do with it.  Ever owned a COD game?  Have you tried playing it AFTER the release of the newest title in the series?  Funny how performance issues crop up overnight.  Usually after a forced update.  Microsoft are masters at planned obsolescense.  Your (and my) 360 will be a brick in +/- 4 years, even though the games and hardware is MORE than enough for anyone who cut their teeth on the NES/SEGA generation.

/Bastards.  Where do I get the '720' anyway?




Yes, I still play CoD4. Plenty of dedicated servers and players, still. Same with BFV.
 
2013-02-24 11:19:03 PM  

way south: Giltric: People will spend 1k on a laptop to do work on and another couple hundred on a console...why not spend all of it on the laptop and play games with it?

Because its complicated.

We're dealing with two different kinds of users. One is the technically capable who would buy a high end pc and use Netflix or steam rather than buying physical media or pay for cable. The other is the kind who really can't be bothered with all that. They want to shove a disk in the machine and reap entertainment for minimal effort.

Pc games are (were) written for power users. Full of configurations that needed to be made, no automated servers, and lots of burden on the user to keep their hardware and software up to spec.
Consoles represent the opposite of that, and its been a profitable difference.

The only way I see to match the two markets is to make a pc and software that's easier to manage. But its going to come at the cost of power users who take their market elsewhere.
Result is there will probably always be a divide.


Not if there were a proper mouse/keyboard. Yay rights management.
 
2013-02-24 11:33:48 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Neondistraction: Now I'm going to go back to playing Assassins Creed 3

Any good?  I got it for free with my GPU, and I haven't even touched it yet.


So far yeah, I'm liking it better than the previous one.  If you like any of the series I don't see why you wouldn't like this one.
 
2013-02-25 12:40:27 AM  
Person 1:The microwave is superior! It's faster, more convenient, and easy to use! I never have to warm it up or set any dials. It also costs a lot less!

Person 2: The oven is better! You have more control, it's more versatile, and though it costs more than a microwave, it also has a stovetop and makes pies and pizza WAY better than a microwave can. I can't stand baking with a digital keypad-- Analog dials are the way REAL cooks do it. Microwaves are for kids.

Person 3: Do I really have to choose, or can I bake a pie in my oven  and cook soup in the microwave? How about I use whichever one suits my immediate needs? Why do I have to pick sides, here?
 
2013-02-25 01:23:14 AM  
wow, there are a whole farkload of posts in here from

A) people who have only heard about PC gaming from CNBC once 14 years ago.
and
B)people who may have done some PC gaming back pre-win98.

the PC is just another platform nowadays. there are very, very few AAA games made for the platform exclusively. in fact, I can think of exactly zero that aren't mmos.
 
2013-02-25 01:34:27 AM  
fogsmoviereviews.files.wordpress.com
YOU"RE ALL
fogsmoviereviews.files.wordpress.com

Both have their selling points. Both have their drawbacks. Can't we all just get back to blowing shiat up and accept that just because some people have different preferences that us, doesn't mean that anyone has to be "Wrong". Now refill your redbull, top off your cheetos, and get back to playing.
 
2013-02-25 01:51:30 AM  

Mike_LowELL: You are correct.  They are also bad video games.


Yes, and fast food is bad food, and it's also more popular than good food. The masses are idiots, man. Rail against it all you want - you won't change it.
 
2013-02-25 02:41:20 AM  

blue_2501: [d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net image 265x310]
Consoles:
* No need for constant expensive upgrades
* Integrated hardware between CPU and video tends to be faster than even some high-range PCs for the first few years
* Even at the end of its life, a modern console still has killer graphics and sound, almost on par with the latest PC graphics (ie: latest Devil May Cry vs. Crysis 3)
* Comes with dual stick controller, which just works better for some games (third person, puzzle, action)
* Less occurrence of cheating
* No driver bullshiat or configuration required
* Consoles are just more popular than PC gaming, so the community is larger

PC Gaming:
* Capable of being at the top of the graphics food chain
* Comes with mouse/keyboard, which just works better for some games (FPS, complex strategy, MMO, flight sims)
* More customizability and access to mods
* Steam tends to be on top of the market value for PC gaming (though, consoles will wise up soon enough)
* Many games start out as PC games, so there's a greater access to some types of games (esp indies)
* Greater access to where you can play them (laptops in the car, for example)

Why argue? Why have this war? Everybody should know these points and just acknowledge that both have their pros and cons. I play games on both. I also play games on my phone, which is absent in this debate. Or my NDS.


Came here to say a lot of this, but I would like to add this.

How much better can real time graphics really get that one would require cutting edge hardware to run?  Things are getting to the near photo realistic as it is where artist can pretty much do what ever they want, and ultimately photo realism will not be the benchmark any more, because everyone will be able to achieve it with ease, and artistic style and vision is what people will look for in outstanding graphics.
 
2013-02-25 02:54:03 AM  

Arthen: If you are reading this, no matter your opinion, you are wasting your life.


Did you mean to post this in the Politics tab? Because it belongs there. All the time.
 
2013-02-25 04:39:36 AM  

Steve Zodiac: Yea, but PC's are a smaller, limited market. I dropped out about 10 years ago, and there were games then that took forever to come out on PC that had been out for a year or more on consoles. Superior hardware does you no good if they don't make games for it.


xbox is a pc... I love how dumb people can be,
 
2013-02-25 05:55:11 AM  

SuperT: A) people who have only heard about PC gaming from CNBC once 14 years ago.
and
B)people who may have done some PC gaming back pre-win98.


THIS

I'm not sure where this "difficult configuration" stuff comes from. I've recently played Portal, World of Goo and Defense Grid via Steam, and the experience is no more complicated than playing a game on a Wii. Actually, it's easier, because I don't have to worry about discs.
 
2013-02-25 06:16:25 AM  
Bought a gaming PC in 2009 for 350 bucks. Just installed Black Ops II on it this past weekend since it was free on Steam. Playing the game at maximum video/graphics capability at a constant >35 fps.

I dont understand this constant assumption that you have to upgrade your PC every 6 months. The whole benefit of a PC was longer shelf life. My PC is just NOW getting a little long in the tooth, with the dual core processor and 4 gigs of ram starting to show its limitations. Mind you im STILL playing current games like Dead Space 3 fully maxed out on a system that was cheaper than the either the PS3 or the 360 while also looking significantly better.

Just a heads up, most driver updates are automatic these days, as are game updates and patches. Im sure its the same for consoles to. Put your game in, pop up says 'oh dear, im out of date, would you like to fix that?' you click yes and 2 minutes later you are playing your game.
 
2013-02-25 12:43:40 PM  
Call me when the Steam box comes out.  Until then, I'm good with my PC. Sure, there are some exclusive titles I'd like to play, but I'm not going to fork out a grand for console hardware and games.
 
2013-02-25 01:48:08 PM  

GAT_00: I'll say what I said last time we did this: PC markets will never die because games like Crusader Kings will never work on consoles, and there's plenty of market for grand strategy games.


That's a fair point, at least until someone comes up with a mouse-equivalent device for consoles. I'd go ahead and put hardcore old-school RPG gaming (think: Baldur's Gate) into the same category for the same reasons.

But this just emphasizes the niche-like nature of the PC gaming market. It's a market that's going to continue to cater to a very select audience of high-end gamers and hobbyists. As someone who does use his PC for gaming, I'm not worried about the industry collapsing around us, but I do think that the PC gamers who are excitedly proclaiming that PC gaming is going to make a tremendous come-back, because there's a momentary downturn in the console market, are badly deluding themselves.
 
2013-02-25 01:54:02 PM  

Repo Man: If your video card is more than six months old, it's out of date. But how old would it have to be to not run a new release at all? Pretty goddamned old for the most part. PC games are set up to run on a spectrum of hardware, from barely running on the minimum spec, to smooth as butter with all of the pretty turned on at the bleeding edge. Just read the box, and you'll generally be fine. And isn't the occasional hardware upgrade part of the fun?


I think that, for the vast majority of people, the answer would be a solid no. There's a specific sort of person who enjoys messing with hardware.
 
2013-02-25 01:54:19 PM  
Cross platform licenses would be nice.
 
2013-02-25 02:45:35 PM  

kab: Repo Man: If your video card is more than six months old, it's out of date.

This statement hasn't been relevant in years.


My card is over 3 years old and it still runs anything I throw at it. I just install the most current drivers every few months and it just runs.
 
2013-02-25 09:44:39 PM  

Electrify: Quick question: I have an AMD Athlon II x4 635 at 2.9 GHz I think, and was wondering if my system could run games that require at least a Phenom, such as newer COD titles and Planetside 2?


Serious question goes ignored in the battle.

The CPU will be fine, it might bottleneck if you have the highest settings at the highest resolutions coupled with the greatest GPUs, but it will still run 1080 on medium/high at 60fps provided the GPU is up to it.

Whilst each thread isn't as fast as a modern chip, it's still more than enough for those plus the three other cores on a multi-threaded game (which most modern games are).
 
2013-02-26 01:44:21 AM  
And the real hell in all of this?  All of that capability won't matter a damn bit.  Right now it's just a matter of cash to have a PC with eight cpu cores and four graphics cards - and can anyone give a guess just how many games that will actually really matter when playing?

Bottom line, if the game is available on Xbox360 or PS3, IT WAS DESIGNED FOR CONSOLES.  The basic controls on a PC are mouse/keyboard, and the head guy at Infinity Ward once referred to support for them as a "custom feature" along with the ability to change resolution.  It is way more than obvious that the big devs don't want to have to support the PC's. We are a chore to them.

untaken_name: Mike_LowELL: You are correct.  They are also bad video games.

Yes, and fast food is bad food, and it's also more popular than good food. The masses are idiots, man. Rail against it all you want - you won't change it.


Ding, ding.  I believe we have a winner.
 
2013-02-26 05:05:18 AM  

Jarhead_h: untaken_name: Mike_LowELL: You are correct. They are also bad video games.

Yes, and fast food is bad food, and it's also more popular than good food. The masses are idiots, man. Rail against it all you want - you won't change it.

Ding, ding. I believe we have a winner.


It would be, but "it's popular and there's nothing you can do about it" is usually code for "you made fun of something I find enjoyable, so instead of actually rebutting the point at-hand, I'll just point out the futility of making that valid argument".  Dumb things get popular, yes.  That doesn't make it any less entertaining to crash the party on their worldview.
 
2013-02-26 10:27:17 AM  

lordargent: as a joke once, I played a level in halo using a Guitar Hero guitar ... I would never do that in multiplayer though ... unless I was playing against other people who were using Guitars.


Why is this not a thing?  It is kind of brilliant.  Now I'm sorely tempted to organize a tournament like that.
 
2013-02-26 11:04:34 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Jarhead_h: untaken_name: Mike_LowELL: You are correct. They are also bad video games.

Yes, and fast food is bad food, and it's also more popular than good food. The masses are idiots, man. Rail against it all you want - you won't change it.

Ding, ding. I believe we have a winner.

It would be, but "it's popular and there's nothing you can do about it" is usually code for "you made fun of something I find enjoyable, so instead of actually rebutting the point at-hand, I'll just point out the futility of making that valid argument".  Dumb things get popular, yes.  That doesn't make it any less entertaining to crash the party on their worldview.


Sorry, I just have a habit of pointing out that most people's rage and butthurt amounts to farts in the wind. Only because I used to spend time ranting against things, and now I find it more fun to point out that it's completely ineffective, which is itself also completely ineffective, but more fun. You sounded mad, bro, is what I'm saying. I only play flight sims, so it's pretty obvious which side of the "console vs. pc" debate *I'm* gonna be on. Well, and sometimes I break out the old TSR games in the DOSbox, but rarely.
 
2013-02-26 04:51:55 PM  

untaken_name: Sorry, I just have a habit of pointing out that most people's rage and butthurt amounts to farts in the wind. Only because I used to spend time ranting against things, and now I find it more fun to point out that it's completely ineffective, which is itself also completely ineffective, but more fun. You sounded mad, bro, is what I'm saying. I only play flight sims, so it's pretty obvious which side of the "console vs. pc" debate *I'm* gonna be on. Well, and sometimes I break out the old TSR games in the DOSbox, but rarely.


Well, two things: One, it takes the point of view that ranting or being critical of something isn't pleasurable.  If you're going a lot of time to the topic and you're really interested in it, developing a thought process for understanding the game can be more fun than playing it.  And number two, it takes the point of view that I should just bite my tongue whenever someone brings up the topic.  I don't know the psychology of the situation, but it's more pleasurable for me to poke holes in the argument than concede the argument is unwinnable.

It's been three-and-a-half years since the game was released and I have yet to see a single decent argument in favor of the quality of those games.  It always boils down to "convenience" or "popularity".  (And when I say "decent", I'm saying "argument that at least has a valid thought process".  "Angry Birds is an excellent game", on the whole, is an indefensible statement.)  And considering I do a lot of writing on the topic (because I find it enjoyable and a worthwhile pursuit), it's worth it for me to engage those situations, just to see what the randoms are saying.

Oh, and just to discuss the topic: The entire "Console vs. PC" debate is stupid because 1) adoption or preference for the platform means absolutely nothing these days, particularly since PC games have become so easy to play, and 2) it pretends the rest of the medium doesn't exist, and if you're playing consoles because they have "the best action games", every person who has ever played games in an arcade would want to laugh at you.  Games are a medium that go far, far beyond one operating platform, and while I personally prefer computer video games, I know there's stuff on consoles, arcades, portables (and possibly one day phones) that simply wouldn't be as much fun with a mouse and keyboard.
 
2013-02-27 02:43:18 AM  
SharkaPult: Why is this not a thing? It is kind of brilliant. Now I'm sorely tempted to organize a tournament like that.

A friend of mine used to play street fighter with his feet ... and was still able to kick our asses.

Some games end up resonating with some people and they become godlike when playing.

// wish I had the time to perfect my skills, damn job :P

// um, that's YOUR controller from now on dude.
 
Displayed 250 of 250 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report