Can't decide between 360 and PC versions of.. well... anything.

I don't know what's with me these days, but all the multiplats that are coming out - Bioshock, Stranglehold, and soon Call of Duty 4 and Medal of Honor: Airborne, I can't decide whether or not to get the 360 or PC versions.

I've been thinking about the pros and cons of each, and I believe the main pros of the PC are the controls, the fact that the graphics will look better than the 360 version eventually (if I upgrade my PC at some point while still playing these games, which I don't plan to anytime soon), and also that the multiplayer aspect of games, especially CoD 4, will be highly competitive. And mods, of course.

Pros of the 360 version would be controls for certain games, such as Stranglehold, and honestly I found that Bioshock controls work better on the 360, butI could use the 360 controller on PC with a wireless adapter. For other shooters obviously the kb/mouse would be the better option. I like the fact that almost everyone uses voice chat.

I think the biggest problem right now as well, is that I have one hard drive that's two months old that completely died on me and I'm still waiting for my replacement, and my other hard drive has some physical errors but a small partition still works, so my PC is pretty castrated right now. I have an external HD that I plan to set up in the meantime, but all these problems have prevented me from getting Bioshock, whereas I could just walk into a store today, pop it in my 360 and play.

I'm wondering if Call of Duty 4 on 360 will be as competitive as the PC version. I think it WILL be, with the new ranking system, but this is the main driving force in my multiplats. I'm a rather competitive FPS player and I want to make sure I get the best experience possible. I'm having quite a difficult time shaking the thought that if I get the 360 version, I'll be "missing out" on something, but when I look at it objectively I'm not sure if I would be really missing out at all.

Any thoughts? Right now I'm leaning towards getting more of the 360 versions of games just so I can pop in and play. And I find myself pretty adaptive control-wise... I can use either with relative ease.

It depends on your PC. If your PC is new then put it to use. As for controls, you can use your 360 controller or PS3 controller or whatever in any PC game you want. Bioshock has plug and play, so you just plug it in and it works just like the 360 controls.

I've played Bioshock on the PC in Dx10 and on the Xbox360 and I'd obviously pick the PC one over the 360 because it just has more advantages on my system because of the power of it. I played MoHAB too and it seems great, and since the shooting is really fast paced, I'd prefer to use the mouse for aiming.

I personally always prefer PC shooters because of the online community, the mods and maps etc, the controls and because it's on the one machine with my internet, movies, music and everything else.

Thanks for the responses, guys. Right now I'm using the same monitor and speaker system for my 360 and PC, so the difference there is negligable.. if I were to get a HDTV I'm sure there would be more reason for me to look at getting the 360 version :) Even though I'm sure I could hook up the PC to the TV as well, it'd be a bit more hassle.

Also I have a good computer, but most of the games look almost exactly the same on either platform, so it doesn't make too much of a difference there!

I'm leaning towards what you mentioned, PikaPichu. I keep hearing about these issues with the PC version of Bioshock, and added to the fact that it's a game that's already out and I still can't play it due to my PC issues, it may become the first multiplat shooter that I've purchased for my 360 :)

I'm a long-time PC gamer and since the 360 launched I've pretty much exclusively bought cross-platform games for the 360. I've gotten good enough with a controller in FPS games that I don't really miss the KB/Mouse much and I'm not a big fan of RTS games. The biggest upside for me is that I am guaranteed a level of graphical quality on the 360 with zero effort on my part. I have more than adequate skills to tweak a PC game to get optimal performance, but I just don't have the time nor the energy anymore. That plus a relatively old PC means I'm almost guaranteed an inferior gaming experience on the PC nowadays. Plus, you can't rent PC games. I still play my fair share of PC exclusives, though. But why go through the hassle if I don't have to?CodeMunki

Hehe, this is exactly the mindset I'm in right now but just having trouble letting my PC go ;) I definately appreciate the lack of a hassle with the xbox version of everything.

I have a 17" widescreen computer monitor. I have a 52" HDTV. How's that for you?Darth_Tigris

I use my HDTV with my computer. How's that for you?

Eh...those games are/will be basically identical across both platforms. Just go with whatever control scheme you prefer, and whatever setup (monitor and desk chair or TV and armchair) you prefer.

The only thing I can say is I've heard Bioshock on PC is definitely buggy; so much so that the developers have admitted their mistake and are in the process of preparing some much-needed patches. ...tends to happen an awful lot with PC games, in my experience. I'd play 'em all on the 360, but that's just me.

Something to consider, which no one has mentioned yet is that PC versions are without exception significantly cheaper (sometimes more than half the price) than the X360 versions. Over many games that could make a big difference.bugsonglass

true but Stranglehold seems to be a game you can beat in 8 hours and has little replayability. so on a console it's just a rental. so:

360: BS $60, MOH: $60, COD4: $60 Stranglehold: $5 = $185

beats

PC: BS, MOH, COD4, Stranglehold $50 = $200

Well, technically, the PC version of any multiplat in the FPS, Action, and RPG genre *should* be the more advantageous version due to the PC's higher level hardware.....but notice I said *should*....we all know it doesn't always work out that way.

I think when it comes down to it you need to research what games you most want to play and look at the developer's history, especially the recent history, on the PC platform in comparison to the Console versions of a game.

I personally find BioShock on PC the more favorable version.....especially knowing the members of 2K Boston (old Irrational). Supposedly the controls in the PC version are more efficient and the graphics in the PC version are crisper if you have a pretty decent rig. Sure, there are some DRM complaints on PC version....but 2K addressed those fast.....and honestly, who really needs to install the same game on 5 different PCs at the same time anyway?....besides, Irrational said they are gonna remove the copy protection all out after a little while anyway. Also, given the nature of the PC and its adaptability.....2K boston is already talking about releasing updates and patches that they can't promise the 360 version will see....like the whole FOV thing, which are present in both the 360 and PC version, but where only the PC version will get the update pertaining to that.

Anything by Valve is instantly a PC buy, everyone knows Valve is a PC-centric developer. I'm definitely getting Team Fortress 2 on PC.....those games will benefit most on PC. With Valve's steam service exclusively on PC I'm willing to bet it'll be the PC version of the HL2 games, TF2, and Portal that will recieve both official updates and maps in addition to usermade maps that the console versions most likely won't see.

Same thing with Epic. Unreal Tournament 3 is another games that's a PC definite for me.....same thing with Geow, Gears of War may have come to 360 first, but I kinda figured that game would end up on PC, and now that it is the PC version is recieving over 20% of exclusive content for both the single player campaign and multiplayer as well as an enhanced engine......definitely making it worth the year wait for PC gamers.

Mafia 2 has been announced for both PC and "Next-gen Consoles" (though it didn't say names, we can pretty much bet 360 and PS3).....however, given how with Mafia the PC version was far superior to the console versions, as well as Illusion Softwork's PC-centric development nature, I'm definitely sticking with the PC for that one.

COD4 is another game I'll definitely be getting on PC....I figure the visuals will benefit most from the higher end hardware on PC, in addition, I'm expecting the controls as well as aspects of the multiplayer (such as a high player count for maps) to be more beneficial on the PC.

......On the flipside, there are those games that I figured or am expecting to be more beneficial on 360 over PC.

Ubisoft developed games recently have had a horrible track record on PC....from poor optimization, to major bugs, to lack of support....I pretty much stay away from Ubisoft developed titles on PC, or even altogether. Ubisoft is definitely a developer that seems to favor the 360 and Xbox most of all over the past several years....and it shows. When it comes to games like Assassin's Creed and their Tom Clancey games, you're best sticking to 360. Ubisoft is supposedly great as a 360 developer.....but as a PC developer they are one of the worst in terms of support and polish.

Stranglehold is said to have a better feel on 360...though the PC version is not bad at all...people are saying the 360 version is more favorable. Again, no surprise since Stranglehold was developed internally by Midway, and Midway's development experience on consoles is far greater then their development experience on PC.

Again....I think it really comes down to your PC rig, the game you're looking at, and most of all the developer behind the game.

I have a 17" widescreen computer monitor. I have a 52" HDTV. How's that for you?Darth_Tigris

*sigh*....I really hate this argument.

One....because it comes off as misinformed.

With a PC monitor you're sitting about 12 inches away from it as oppossed to sitting about 12 feet with an HDTV....given that, viewing a higher end PC monitor takes up just as much of your field of view as viewing an HDTV, and can be just as immersive. In fact, with a high end PC monitor it's easier to notice details since you're sitting much closer to and the resolution is capable of being higher. Having gamed on a nice widescreen PC monitor and large screen HDTV, I've never found one more advantagous over the other in terms of the gameplay experience, in fact, I would say a majority of my personal most immersive gameplay experiences have been in front of the PC.

Second...that argument comes off as somewhat hypocritical in some cases.

I always found it funny how some will be quick to bring up the supposed high cost of PC gaming (which is sometimes misinformed).....yet at the same time will also be quick to mention things like 42" or 52" HDTV's, which last time I checked aren't exactly cheap, or $2,000 surround sound systems.

I always found it funny how some will be quick to bring up the supposed high cost of PC gaming (which is sometimes misinformed).....yet at the same time will also be quick to mention things like 42" or 52" HDTV's, which last time I checked aren't exactly cheap, or $2,000 surround sound systems.

Robnyc22

we already debunked this argument that PC gamers like to point out... i don't know of a single person that bought a $2000 tv when they bought their PS3 or 360... they either had it before or decided to get it after to take advantage of satillite tv, next gen dvd players or things like that. also HDTV's have come down in price...

i can quickly makea comment just as erroneous and say that you have to add a $3000Mahogany desk with Alligator office chair all cunstructed by Amish woodcarvers to the cost of a PC.

doesn't make much sense does it?

I think that choosing the platform has everything to do with the type of game. .unihoaxer

My thoughts exactly. If it is what I call an "experience" game (essentially a lot of atmosphere, story, etc) I tend to choose it on my 360. That's because I enjoy these kinds of games on my big HDTV and surround sound system more. Bioshock was a good example of this kind of game.

If it is an action intensive game (or an RTS) or something with stunning graphics, I play it on my PC. COD4 will be a definite PC buy for me.I've got a solid PC too (E6600, 8800GTX, Vista, 21" LCD, less powerful surround sound,etc) so it really is a matter of the environment that I want to play the game on.

The home entertainment center has some pluses for certain types of games because my PC just can't deliver the same kind of immersion. This may change when I move later this month and the PC gets hooked up to a 42" plasma that I got for free, but we'll have to see ;) The same can be said of certain types of games on a PC though. I really can't get the same experience on a console with them either. Considering I have very good systems for both, it really is just a choice between where I would like to enjoy the game.

Quote tags aren't working, GameSpot. Anyway-

QUOTE: "I personally find BioShock on PC the more favorable version.....especially knowing the members of 2K Boston (old Irrational). Supposedly the controls in the PC version are more efficient and the graphics in the PC version are crisper if you have a pretty decent rig. Sure, there are some DRM complaints on PC version....but 2K addressed those fast.....and honestly, who really needs to install the same game on 5 different PCs at the same time anyway?....besides, Irrational said they are gonna remove the copy protection all out after a little while anyway. Also, given the nature of the PC and its adaptability.....2K boston is already talking about releasing updates and patches that they can't promise the 360 version will see....like the whole FOV thing, which are present in both the 360 and PC version, but where only the PC version will get the update pertaining to that.

Anything by Valve is instantly a PC buy, everyone knows Valve is a PC-centric developer. I'm definitely getting Team Fortress 2 on PC.....those games will benefit most on PC. With Valve's steam service exclusively on PC I'm willing to bet it'll be the PC version of the HL2 games, TF2, and Portal that will recieve both official updates and maps in addition to usermade maps that the console versions most likely won't see.

Same thing with Epic. Unreal Tournament 3 is another games that's a PC definite for me.....same thing with Geow, Gears of War may have come to 360 first, but I kinda figured that game would end up on PC, and now that it is the PC version is recieving over 20% of exclusive content for both the single player campaign and multiplayer as well as an enhanced engine......definitely making it worth the year wait for PC gamers."

I don't really know why you're completely discounting the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Network in all your assumptions. There has been LOADS of downloadable content for multiplat games on consoles that the PC never sees because of these features, and to believe something like UT3 won't get any sort of exclusive content on the PS3 - or the same content on the PC - from the Network is erroneous, I believe. Mark Rein has said repeatedly that one of the biggest benefits of developing for the PS3 was its mod capabilities. And regardless of how "fast" 2K may have dealt with the significant issues in Bioshock on the PC, based on the feedback I've read, I would never recommedn the PC version at this point. There are still too many problems, it seems.

These days, it's very wrong to think the PC versions of multiplat games are getting all these upgrades and the console versions are not. It just don't work that way anymore. I'm with you about Valve, but even that is destined to change eventually. This isn't 1995. Just because a developer is "PC-centric" doesn't mean they can't develop as well or better on the PS3 or Xbox 360. Look at Crytek: they've recently announced they have an entirely separate room for their PS3 game in development because they're excited about working on "secret technologies" for the PS3. Allegorithmic's Sebastien Deguy just went on record saying how much further the PS3 has to go, and how much more it can do, even in comparison to the high-end PCs out there. And when they make their game, do you really think they'll just ignore downloadable content and extras for the Network because it's not on PC? What business sense does that make?

Quote: "*sigh*....I really hate this argument.

One....because it comes off as misinformed.

With a PC monitor you're sitting about 12 inches away from it as oppossed to sitting about 12 feet with an HDTV....given that, viewing a higher end PC monitor takes up just as much of your field of view as viewing an HDTV, and can be just as immersive. In fact, with a high end PC monitor it's easier to notice details since you're sitting much closer to and the resolution is capable of being higher. Having gamed on a nice widescreen PC monitor and large screen HDTV, I've never found one more advantagous over the other in terms of the gameplay experience, in fact, I would say a majority of my personal most immersive gameplay experiences have been in front of the PC.

Second...that argument comes off as somewhat hypocritical in some cases.

I always found it funny how some will be quick to bring up the supposed high cost of PC gaming (which is sometimes misinformed).....yet at the same time will also be quick to mention things like 42" or 52" HDTV's, which last time I checked aren't exactly cheap, or $2,000 surround sound systems."

There's noting "supposed" about it. People don't have to go out and buy a TV with a PS3 or Xbox 360; they already HAVE one. And with 80% of the TVs sold last Christmas being capable of HD, more and more people (gamers especially) have TVs in their home that are HD-ready before they buy any game consoles. Just like you use PCs for things other than gaming, you use TVs for things other than gaming...it's a perfectly fair comparison. And that number of HD owners will continue to rise as time goes on. The bottom line is that PCs have NOT come down that far in price, ad you STILL have to upgrade at a far more frequent rate. Simple: you can purchase a PS3 AND an Xbox 360 for less than $1000, and never have to upgrade again for at least another five or six years, or, if Sony isn't lying, seven or eight years. Know how many upgrades the PC will need to have in that span of time to play new software? How much do good video and sound cards cost again? Oh, that's right...half the damn price of a console. And that's only one or two ptentially essential upgrades.

And lastly, if you've never seen how a 42" HD plasma in 1080i/p resolution isn't "advantageous" to gaming...then I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you incredibly biased, or you simply never had the pleasure. Sitting 12 inches from a 20" screen (which, by the way, is NOT good for your eyes) is hardly what I call a superior experience to the armchair and an HD.

...

fathoms_basic

wow...i agree

what's this world coming to?

Well, I've stopped buying games for the PC altogether. I'd rather sacrifice a bit of graphical quality and get a hassle-free experience with a guaranteed minimum level of performance. That said, I can only play WoW on my PC and I can only play Soul Calibur III on console, so that decision's made for me.

It was good reading everyone's responses! I ended up getting the 360 version of Bioshock, and not only does it run better than on my PC, I really like the controls as well. I dont mind them being more inaccurate than a mouse.

I think my next big decisions will be Call of Duty 4 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. I think QW will only support 16 players on the 360 version, and while I've played in a game that size before and it was entertaining, I'd rather have a larger number of players. The same thing goes with Call of Duty 4. I think I would lose any interest in the PC version if there were dedicated servers available for the 360 versions of these games, so we could have 64 or even 100 player matches. Now THAT would be intense.

Currently shopping for HDTV's so I can get a real nice 360 setup going instead of just using my computer desk and PC monitor!

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

...

smerlus

wow...i agree

what's this world coming to?

...stranger things have been known to happen.

I don't really know why you're completely discounting the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Network in all your assumptions. There has been LOADS of downloadable content for multiplat games on consoles that the PC never sees because of these featuresfathoms_basic

I was referring to games like Valve's catalogue and UT3.

I can guarantee you Steam on PC is more important in Valve's eyes then Playstation Network or Xbox Live!....and if and when Valve does bring any official downloadable content to games like TF2, Portal, and the HL2 games....it'll most likely appear on Steam first, or exclusively.

Mark Rein has said repeatedly that one of the biggest benefits of developing for the PS3 was its mod capabilities.fathoms_basic

Mod "capabilities" in which they have to rely on PC users to bring over....can you really tell me there will be many Ps3 users creating mods on their PS3?

Second...."Mod" can mean anything....from slightly altered maps, to little cheats, to simple skins....I'm referring more to total conversions....you know, what CS was the HL, what Red Orchestra was to UT2004....I'd really like to see how those will be possible on PS3, and have my doubts, especially since those are practically a rewrite of the game code.

And regardless of how "fast" 2K may have dealt with the significant issues in Bioshock on the PC, based on the feedback I've read, I would never recommedn the PC version at this point. There are still too many problems, it seems.fathoms_basic

Other then the copy protection issue and the activation, I haven't heard of many serious complaints of Bioshock....in fact, from what I've read on some forums, many PC users are surprised how well it runs of mid-range or older hardware.

These days, it's very wrong to think the PC versions of multiplat games are getting all these upgrades and the console versions are not.fathoms_basic

Again...it depends on the developer.....but in a case like with Valve's games, I'd bet money that the PC version will see downloadable content....both official and unofficial....that the console versions will never see.

There's noting "supposed" about it. People don't have to go out and buy a TV with a PS3 or Xbox 360; they already HAVE one.fathoms_basic

You're SEVERLY overestimating the HDTV market penetration, especially for the larger models like 42" and 52" sets. Truth is not everyone has an HDTV, and far fewer have 42" to 52" HDTVs.

I can make an argument that most people already have a PC....or even when someone goes out and buys a high end gaming PC it's usefullness extends FAR beyond gaming.

And with 80% of the TVs sold last Christmas being capable of HD, more and more people (gamers especially) have TVs in their home that are HD-ready before they buy any game consoles. Just like you use PCs for things other than gaming, you use TVs for things other than gaming...it's a perfectly fair comparison.fathoms_basic

No...because the HDTV is a completely seperate purchase from a console.

When someone has a good gaming PC, they immediately have hardware that is capable of any other major PC function...from surfing the web, to editing photos, to editing videos and music, to pretty much anything...in addition to getting the PC gaming experiece.

The bottom line is that PCs have NOT come down that far in price, ad you STILL have to upgrade at a far more frequent rate.fathoms_basic

These have got to be two of the most false statements I have read in quite awhile.

The cost what was considered a good "gaming" PC (as in capable of running Quake III or Max Payne well) back in 2001 or 2000 was around $2,500.....today a solid gaming PC can be had in the $1,500 range. The prices of capable graphics cards have nearly been halved in the past 5 years with more choices then ever before.

The complete opposite has happened with consoles...with PS3 and Xbox 360 having higher launch prices of pretty much any other major system in over a decade....and also companies like MS and Sony have opted for multiple SKUs rather then significant price drops....especially the PS3 with it's outrageously high price.

Simple: you can purchase a PS3 AND an Xbox 360 for less than $1000,fathoms_basic

Only you minus the cost of the TV that will benefit from those two systems capabilites.

one can get a PC, with a monitor capable of HD resolutions, for a $1000 - $1200 which is capable of playing this years games fine which will be FAR more useful for things beyond gaming.

and never have to upgrade again for at least another five or six years,fathoms_basic

You also forget to mention the hardware capabilities of consoles pretty much remain static for those 5 years....sure, developers learn to exploit the hardware better, but the actual capabilities pretty much remain the same.

If someone buys an 8800 series today and chooses not to upgrade for the next 5 years, they too can also enjoy the same level of visuals that these current consoles will display 5 years from now....even more so. Someone who bought a 9700 series back in 2002 (just 7 months after the release of Xbox) was perfectly fine playing a majority of games up to 2005 at visuals and effect that were better then Xbox.

See...that's one of the benefits of PC gaming...if you want to, you can improve you gaming experience. You may not enjoy the idea of improving you hardware and sticking with the same thing for 5 years....but other people like it another way.

You and I both know that after 3 years the PS2 was hardly capable of many of the more visually impressive third party games, it was really only the first party or exclusive titles that really shined on the PS2 after that....as for the Xbox, that life cycle was cut short after just 4 years so I dont know how you are going on with this "six years" claim.

or, if Sony isn't lying, seven or eight years.fathoms_basic

Yeah....cause look how honest and accurate Sony has been so far with the PS3...especially with crazy Kens comments.:roll:

Know how many upgrades the PC will need to have in that span of time to play new software?fathoms_basic

Yeah, as a matter of fact I do know from experience.....if you're a smart shopper, One upgrade, at the most Two...a new graphics card maybe in 3 years for around $200, at the earliest 2 years if you're a graphics junkie, and maybe a new stick of RAM for like $60 (the cost of one console game).

....and that graphics card 2 or 3 years from now will actually be able to run the newest high end engines that should be releasing in 3 years at full visual fidelity and effects....will you be able to claim the same for 360 or PS3?

And again...that's onlyIF someone is interested in only running the most taxing graphics at the time...there will still be a wealth of quality games over the next couple of years that will easily be able to run on old hardware, for example Starcraft 2. People are enjoying this years PC releases perfectly fine on hardware from 3 YEARS ago.

In fact, I can't think of one announced game other then Crysis coming this year or even next year that wont run effectively enough on a 7800GT, a card from two years ago.....so much for the attitude of "frequent" upgrades, that 7800GT from 2005 seems to serve quite well three years after release well into 2008, and beyond into 2009 on the less taxing games.

How much do good video and sound cards cost again? Oh, that's right...half the damn price of a console. And that's only one or two ptentially essential upgrades.fathoms_basic

Last time I checked, a Geforce 7950 is an excellent card for DirectX 9 gaming and can run games at the same level as 360 or PS3 at even higher resolutions....which can be had for $179 new. Even a 8800GTS is can be had for $250 and is fully directX 10 compliant.

And lastly, if you've never seen how a 42" HD plasma in 1080i/p resolution isn't "advantageous" to gaming...then I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you incredibly biased, or you simply never had the pleasure. Sitting 12 inches from a 20" screen (which, by the way, is NOT good for your eyes) is hardly what I call a superior experience to the armchair and an HD.

fathoms_basic

First, current PC LCD screens are no more harmful to you eyes than any HDTV, in fact, PC LCD screens arent harmful to the eyes over the long term like old CRTs...so stop making stuff up.

Second....No, I don't see how sitting 12 feet from a 42 inch HDTV is any more "advantageous" to sitting 12 inches from a nice 24 - 30 inch high end widescreen LCD monitor.....since they both take up roughly the same field of view given the distance you are from them.

In addition, those PC monitors are capable of higher resolutions and the new PC graphics cards are capable of rendering better textures for that screen to take advantage of.

If anything I'd say you've probably never had the pleasure of playing a game on a 24 or even 30 inch PC widescreen LCD (since you want to bring up those 52 inch HDTVs) at a resolution of 1920x1200 or even 2560x1600.

It was good reading everyone's responses! I ended up getting the 360 version of Bioshock, and not only does it run better than on my PC, I really like the controls as well. I dont mind them being more inaccurate than a mouse.MyopicCanadian

It sounds like you made the right decision for Bioshock, the PC version is over copy protected, limited installs and still buggy.

But as long as your PC can run things good, that version usually is the best. However, if all PC games keep coming with malware/securom viruses, console versions will be the only safe ones to buy.

I was referring to games like Valve's catalogue and UT3.

I can guarantee you Steam on PC is more important in Valve's eyes then Playstation Network or Xbox Live!....and if and when Valve does bring any official downloadable content to games like TF2, Portal, and the HL2 games....it'll most likely appear on Steam first, or exclusively.

You can guarantee nothing, especially with the PC games market in a continual downward spiral in comparison to the console games market. It's all about money and profits, and if you honestly believe loyalty plays any role whatsoever in Valve's future decisions, you're out of your mind.

Mod "capabilities" in which they have to rely on PC users to bring over....can you really tell me there will be many Ps3 users creating mods on their PS3?

Ah yes, another implication that console owners just aren't "tech-savvy" or interested enough to do such a thing. Please don't bother with the insinuation; it's completely worthless in this day and age. Epic is doing what they're doing for a reason.

Second...."Mod" can mean anything....from slightly altered maps, to little cheats, to simple skins....I'm referring more to total conversions....you know, what CS was the HL, what Red Orchestra was to UT2004....I'd really like to see how those will be possible on PS3, and have my doubts, especially since those are practically a rewrite of the game code.

I'll be asking Rein about this myself in an upcoming interview we're doing. And again, I'm relatively certain they know what they're doing.

Other then the copy protection issue and the activation, I haven't heard of many serious complaints of Bioshock....in fact, from what I've read on some forums, many PC users are surprised how well it runs of mid-range or older hardware.

That's a flat-out lie. Most people do NOT have the capacity with a general PC to play Bioshock, and furthermore, 2K Games has recently apologized for releasing a particularly buggy PC version of the game. ...did you just choose to ignore that? I'm sure they'll fix it with patches, but then again, it seems like most every PC game needs to be fixed with patches.

Again...it depends on the developer.....but in a case like with Valve's games, I'd bet money that the PC version will see downloadable content....both official and unofficial....that the console versions will never see.

Again, do you really think there won't be exclusive content on the Network or Live? Do you have any idea what kind of pull both those online services have right now, especially Live? Clearly, you don't.

You're SEVERLY overestimating the HDTV market penetration, especially for the larger models like 42" and 52" sets. Truth is not everyone has an HDTV, and far fewer have 42" to 52" HDTVs.

I'm not overestimating everything; I report on the numbers every month. I know what they are. My numbers are accurate, and I never once said that "everyone has a HDTV." I said the number of HD owners is ever on the rise, and your argument about a PC monitor vs. a HDTV will continually get more and more irrelevant because of this.

I can make an argument that most people already have a PC....or even when someone goes out and buys a high end gaming PC it's usefullness extends FAR beyond gaming.

Right. And a TV is only good for games. :roll:

These have got to be two of the most false statements I have read in quite awhile.

The cost what was considered a good "gaming" PC (as in capable of running Quake III or Max Payne well) back in 2001 or 2000 was around $2,500.....today a solid gaming PC can be had in the $1,500 range. The prices of capable graphics cards have nearly been halved in the past 5 years with more choices then ever before.

The complete opposite has happened with consoles...with PS3 and Xbox 360 having higher launch prices of pretty much any other major system in over a decade....and also multiple SKUs rather then significant price drops....especially the PS3 with it's outrageously high price.

Good numbers. Did you not add them up so it could look better? Good gaming PC for $1500 (still too low, but whatever). One console...hell, I'll give you both the PS3 and Xbox 360, for about $900. Upgrade required to play the best games for the next 5-8 years for the consoles- none. Zero dollars. Upgrade required for consoles in same time frame- God only knows. Even if it's only a few hundred dollars, it's still far more expensive. Not to mention the fact that many, many PC games have problems console games never have, which gamers these days have absolutely no patience or tolerance for. Yeah, the PS3 has an "outrageously" high price. The 60GB is $500 and the Premium 360 is now $350, which means both are less than 1/3 the price of a "solid gaming PC" and both get far more quality titles in the span of one year. Three times as many, last I checked over at GameRankings. Want me to bring up the numbers of great games (80%+)for consoles in one year compared to the number of great games for PC? You do not want to see those, my friend.

Wow, you made a good point there.

Only you minus the cost of the TV that will benefit those two systems.

one can get a PC, with a monitor capable of HD resolutions, for a $1000 which capable of playing this years games fine which will be FAR more useful for things beyond gaming.

Any particular reason you seem to think a HDTV is absolutely required in order for the games on consoles to be any good or worth playing? What the hell kind of argument is that?

You also forget to mention the hardware capabilities of consoles pretty much remain static for those 5 years....sure, developers learn to exploit the hardware better, but the actual capabilities pretty much remain the same.

If someone buys an 8800 series today and chooses not to upgrade for the next 5 years, they can also enjoy the same visual fidility that these current consoles will be capaple of over the next 5 years....even more so. Someone who bought a 9700 series back in 2002 was perfectly fine playing a majority of games up to 2005 at visuals that were better then Xbox.

See...that's one of the benefits of PC gaming...if you want to, you can improve you gaming experience. PC gaming is about options and choice.....sure, some of those choices come with a cost, but at least its there. You may not enjoy the idea of improving you hardware and sticking with the same thing for 5 years....but other people like it another way.

Here are the words of someone who has virtually no idea what happens with consoles. None. Compare PS2 launch titles to the later titles like God of War II, Final Fantasy XII, MGS 3, GT 4, Okami, etc. Go right ahead. The games may as well be on completely different consoles, they're so visually different. Developers have constantly said, again and again, just how much capability the PS3 has. What, do you really think Killzone 2 will look the same as Resistance? Does Gears of War look the same as Xbox 360 launch titles? Crytek, who is making your precious Crysis for the PC, couldn't possibly be more excited about working with the PS3...what does that tell you? More and more developers have switched from PC to console - or are at least including console - and there's a damn good reason for it.

As of right now, there isn't a thing on the PC that significantly outstrips the best-looking console productions, and games on consoles will only continue to look better. For no extra cost. You want better-looking games in the future on the PC? I'm sure they'll exist, but you're gonna pay. You're so far off-base in your argument, it's not even funny.

Yeah....cause look how honest and accurate Sony has been so far with the PS3...especially with crazy Kens comments.:roll:

Yeah, because after all, Ken has been making all the announcements and claims in 2007. Oh, wait a second...he's not here, anymore. Way to stay current. :roll:

Yeah, as a matter of fact I do know from experience.....if you're a smart shopper, One upgrade, at the most Two...a new graphics card maybe in 3 years, at the earliest 2 years if you're a graphics junkie, and maybe a new stick of RAM for like $60 (the cost of one console game).

....and that graphics card 2 or 3 years from now will actually be able to run the newest high end engines that should be releasing in 3 years at full visual fidelity and effects....will you be able to claim the same for 360 or PS3?

And again...that's IF someone is interested in only running the most taxing graphics at the time...there will still be a wealth of quality games over the next couple of years that will easily be able to run on old hardware, for example Starcraft 2. People are enjoying this years PC releases perfectly fine on hardware from 3 YEARS ago.

And I'm enjoying three generations of games on my PS3. Don't really have any problem, now do I? As for the rest, I've already added up the numbers earlier, which you refuse to do. And you won't, because it completely negates your entire argument. It wouldn't matter if the graphics card cost $1. That's already more expensive, so just accept the facts. Please.

Last time I checked, a Geforce 7950 is an excellent card for DirectX 9 gaming and can run games at the same level as 360 or PS3....which can be had for $179 new. Even a 8800GTS is can be had for $250 and is fully directX 10 compliant.

See above.

First, current PC LCD screens are no more harmful to you eyes than any HDTV, in fact, PC LCD screens arent harmful to the eyes over the long term like old CRTs...so stop making stuff up.

Do some research on the matter, and then maybe you can talk. Until then, don't bother. Glaucoma and those who work on PCs their entire lives go together like peanut butter and jelly. You're wasting my time on this.

Second....No, I don't see how sitting 12 feet from a 42 inch HDTV is any more "advantageous" to sitting 12 inches from a nice 24 - 30 inch high end widescreen LCD monitor.....since they both take up roughly the same field of view given the distance you are from them.

Field of view? Is this the argument you PC elitists are clinging to, now? I'll tell you what, chief- line up any 10 gamers in this country, and ask them if they'd prefer a regular HDTV (even one that's 32" or 37") and an armchair or a PC monitor and a desk chair. Do it as many times as you want. Let me know when the majority chooses the PC option...because hell will have officially frozen over.

I've seen this same argument from you before. You clearly know nothing about consoles and are desperately clinging to phantom PC superiority that evaporated several years ago. There's a reason why gamers are siding with consoles these days, and it's not because they're "stupid" or just "don't know what's good." It's because you can now have a very similar - or even better - experience with a console (or even multiple consoles) for a lesser price. You can try to rationalize and spin things any way you wish, but you're not acknowledging the actual numbers and facts, and that's what matters. You can promote PC gaming until you're blue in the face, but it won't do you any good whatsoever. I hope PC gaming dies out soon because it's a colossal waste of everyone's time and money, and I'm sick of hearing the elitist looking-down-their-nose arguments from PC fans who are still living in 1995.

It's a brave new world and welcome to it. If you want to sit in the past, fine. But I don't want any part of it.

The only thing I can say is I've heard Bioshock on PC is definitely buggy; so much so that the developers have admitted their mistake and are in the process of preparing some much-needed patches. .

fathoms_basic

So far the only "bug" that I've seen documented is the SecureROM gaffe that limits users to two installs. If not for that, I'd take the PC version in heartbeat.

People don't have to go out and buy a TV with a PS3 or Xbox 360; they already HAVE one.

fathoms_basic

Wait.......so people don't already have a computer monitor?

Just like you use PCs for things other than gaming, you use TVs for things other than gaming...it's a perfectly fair comparison.

fathoms_basic

How on earth is that a fair comparison? A TV has one function, viewing, its an output device. How many things can you do with a PC?

The bottom line is that PCs have NOT come down that far in price, ad you STILL have to upgrade at a far more frequent rate. Simple: you can purchase a PS3 AND an Xbox 360 for less than $1000, and never have to upgrade again for at least another five or six years, or, if Sony isn't lying, seven or eight years. Know how many upgrades the PC will need to have in that span of time to play new software? How much do good video and sound cards cost again? Oh, that's right...half the damn price of a console. And that's only one or two ptentially essential upgrades.

fathoms_basic

Fathoms, I think you're seriously out of your element here. PCs have come down way down in price. A top of the line rig can be built for less around a $1000, true, but that's taking into account some complusive overclocker, in which case, a PC that could play anything even at mid-above midrange settings could be built for less. Newegg.com says hello. What's this mess about having to frequently upgrade? Sigh.........I thought this PC gaming myth had long been universally debunked. I haven't upgraded since 2003 and can still play anything on the market. It all depends on the user, but not all of us need to play the newest games at max resolution. Your comment here just isn't a true statement.

A good PCIe video card can be had for as little as $150 and a DX 10 card for as little $250.

Your remark about the cost of a PS3 and a X360 is off base. A PC is a multifunction device, functions that are not available on a game console.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

People don't have to go out and buy a TV with a PS3 or Xbox 360; they already HAVE one.

MarcusAntonius

Wait.......so people don't already have a computer monitor?

Just like you use PCs for things other than gaming, you use TVs for things other than gaming...it's a perfectly fair comparison.

fathoms_basic

How on earth is that a fair comparison? A TV has one function, viewing, its an output device. How many things can you do with a PC?

The bottom line is that PCs have NOT come down that far in price, ad you STILL have to upgrade at a far more frequent rate. Simple: you can purchase a PS3 AND an Xbox 360 for less than $1000, and never have to upgrade again for at least another five or six years, or, if Sony isn't lying, seven or eight years. Know how many upgrades the PC will need to have in that span of time to play new software? How much do good video and sound cards cost again? Oh, that's right...half the damn price of a console. And that's only one or two ptentially essential upgrades.

fathoms_basic

Fathoms, I think you're seriously out of your element here. PCs have come down way down in price. A top of the line rig can be built for less around a $1000, true, but that's taking into account some complusive overclocker, in which case, a PC that could play anything even at mid-above midrange settings could be built for less. Newegg.com says hello. What's this mess about having to frequently upgrade? Sigh.........I thought this PC gaming myth had long been universally debunked. I haven't upgraded since 2003 and can still play anything on the market. It all depends on the user, but not all of us need to play the newest games at max resolution. Your comment here just isn't a true statement.

A good PCIe video card can be had for as little as $150 and a DX 10 card for as little $250.

Your remark about the cost of a PS3 and a X360 is off base. A PC is a multifunction device, functions that are not available on a game console.

Nothing you said is even worth a reply. Nothing has come down in price very far; computers that "can be built" hardly apply to 99% of the gamers out there, and both a TV and a PC are "multifunction" devices. Unless you're taking your PC out dancing, and unless you're trying to make people believe $400 worth of cards (in addition to the $1000 aforementioned purchase) is somehow cheaper than two consoles, in addition to trying to make people believe you can use the same cards for six years and play the best software with no issues...just don't bother. Nobody's listening.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

People don't have to go out and buy a TV with a PS3 or Xbox 360; they already HAVE one.

fathoms_basic

Wait.......so people don't already have a computer monitor?

Just like you use PCs for things other than gaming, you use TVs for things other than gaming...it's a perfectly fair comparison.

fathoms_basic

How on earth is that a fair comparison? A TV has one function, viewing, its an output device. How many things can you do with a PC?

The bottom line is that PCs have NOT come down that far in price, ad you STILL have to upgrade at a far more frequent rate. Simple: you can purchase a PS3 AND an Xbox 360 for less than $1000, and never have to upgrade again for at least another five or six years, or, if Sony isn't lying, seven or eight years. Know how many upgrades the PC will need to have in that span of time to play new software? How much do good video and sound cards cost again? Oh, that's right...half the damn price of a console. And that's only one or two ptentially essential upgrades.

fathoms_basic

Fathoms, I think you're seriously out of your element here. PCs have come down way down in price. A top of the line rig can be built for less around a $1000, true, but that's taking into account some complusive overclocker, in which case, a PC that could play anything even at mid-above midrange settings could be built for less. Newegg.com says hello. What's this mess about having to frequently upgrade? Sigh.........I thought this PC gaming myth had long been universally debunked. I haven't upgraded since 2003 and can still play anything on the market. It all depends on the user, but not all of us need to play the newest games at max resolution. Your comment here just isn't a true statement.

A good PCIe video card can be had for as little as $150 and a DX 10 card for as little $250.

Your remark about the cost of a PS3 and a X360 is off base. A PC is a multifunction device, functions that are not available on a game console.

Nothing you said is even worth a reply. Nothing has come down in price very far; computers that "can be built" hardly apply to 99% of the gamers out there, and both a TV and a PC are "multifunction" devices. Unless you're taking your PC out dancing, and unless you're trying to make people believe $400 worth of cards (in addition to the $1000 aforementioned purchase) is somehow cheaper than two consoles, in addition to trying to make people believe you can use the same cards for six years and play the best software with no issues...just don't bother. Nobody's listening.

99%? Where did you pickup that figure from? Oh wait, I forgot, your anecdotes qualify as hard evidence. $400 worth of cards, once again, you're pulling figures out of your ass. I doubt you know one thing about PC maintenance, downloading drivers, etc. It would seem that you're the one who barely warrants a reply.

My post isn't worth a reply in your opinion since you clearly cannot backup your misinformation. You would have done well to not have posted a reply as you only continue to advertise your ignorance.

You can guarantee nothing, especially with the PC games market in a continual downward spiral in comparison to the console games market. It's all about money and profits, and if you honestly believe loyalty plays any role whatsoever in Valve's future decisions, you're out of your mind.fathoms_basic

Ah yes...the whole "PC gaming is dying" argument certain uninformed people cling to...the one that gets debunked every gen.

You're right, it is about money and profits, its also about control over your work...and Valve's case they sees far more profit on PC then on Console, especially when each copy sold through their Steam service brings in about 4x the amount sold of a copy sold via retail.

Ah yes, another implication that console owners just aren't "tech-savvy" or interested enough to do such a thing. Please don't bother with the insinuation; it's completely worthless in this day and age. Epic is doing what they're doing for a reason.fathoms_basic

The question wasn't about being "tech savy"....I asked how many people will be making mods on there PS3? and are you gauranteed to see Total Conversion mods on PS3?

Fact is this whole "mods on PS3" still has to pretty much rely on the PC version to bring them over. Those "tech savy" PS3 owners are going to need a PC to run UT3 to even consider bringing a mod over, second, how many of those people are gonna buy two copies of the same game just to make a mod on PC to bring over to PS3.

That's a flat-out lie. Most people do NOT have the capacity with a general PC to play Bioshock, and furthermore, 2K Games has recently apologized for releasing a particularly buggy PC version of the game. ...did you just choose to ignore that? I'm sure they'll fix it with patches, but then again, it seems like most every PC game needs to be fixed with patches.fathoms_basic

I havent heard of any major bugs, other then the copy protection issue, which was resolved...and like I said, given the anticipated specs, most posts I've seen on PC gaming forums are surprised Bioshock runs on older hardware from two years ago as well as it does.

Again, do you really think there won't be exclusive content on the Network or Live? Do you have any idea what kind of pull both those online services have right now, especially Live? Clearly, you don't.fathoms_basic

The number of Steam accounts is larger then that of Xbox Live! accounts, and with the Steam versions Valve enjoys full control over their IP and full profits, something they wont get with Live! or Playstation Network.

Even if it's only a few hundred dollars, it's still far more expensive.fathoms_basic

For the initial hardware, yes, it is more expensive.

For the overall gaming experience over the 5 years, not so much...Not when I save anywhere in the neighborhood of 10 - 20 dollars per game, not to mention the enhanced long term value from free map packs and mods on certain games.

Not to mention the fact that many, many PC games have problems console games never have, which gamers these days have absolutely no patience or tolerance for.fathoms_basic

PC gamers also enjoy certain benefits console games will never have.

For example, one can get a more enhanced experience with the PC version of Oblivion compared to the console version...you know that whole "leveling" aspect that annoyed many people with the whole world leveling with you....guess what, on the PC you have the option to get rid of it....can't do that on console.

Yeah, the PS3 has an "outrageously" high price. The 60GB is $500 and the Premium 360 is now $350, which means both are less than 1/3 the price of a "solid gaming PC" and both get far more quality titles in the span of one year.fathoms_basic

Really?....How many editors choice (ie AAA) games has PS3 had this year at Gamespot in comparison to PC?....how about 360?

How many did Xbox have in comparison to PC from 2001 - 2005?

Three times as many, last I checked over at GameRankings.fathoms_basic

Oh, I see, we're going by Gamerankings....so Three times as many?

Check again....Xbox 360 has had a whopping three games released this year that broke the 90% review average....

Guess how many releases PS3 has had this year that broke the 90% review average....One...Oblivion...a game that was on PC last year.

guess how many PC has.....Three....just as many as 360 so far this year...and more then PS3.

Do you want to go my Gamespot's review scores?

Want me to bring up the numbers of great games (80%+)for consoles in one year compared to the number of great games for PC? You do not want to see those, my friend.fathoms_basic

How about we go by the number of games that broke 90% for each system, either here at Gamespot, or we can use gamerankings if you want.

I can assure you PC holds its own in quality titles over the span of a generation with any console platform, especially in terms of exclusives.

Any particular reason you seem to think a HDTV is absolutely required in order for the games on consoles to be any good or worth playing? What the hell kind of argument is that?fathoms_basic

Probably the same misinformed reason you seem to think that in order to enjoy PC gaming one needs expensive and "frequent" upgrades.

Here are the words of someone who has virtually no idea what happens with consoles. None. Compare PS2 launch titles to the later titles like God of War II, Final Fantasy XII, MGS 3, GT 4, Okami, etc. Go right ahead. The games may as well be on completely different consoles, they're so visually different.fathoms_basic

Yeah....and compare the titles released on PC in 2002 to the ones released in 2004....yet were able to run just effectively on a 9700 or even 9500 series, both cards which released in 2002.

Developers have constantly said, again and again, just how much capability the PS3 has. What, do you really think Killzone 2 will look the same as Resistance? Does Gears of War look the same as Xbox 360 launch titles? Crytek, who is making your precious Crysis for the PC, couldn't possibly be more excited about working with the PS3...what does that tell you? More and more developers have switched from PC to console - or are at least including console - and there's a damn good reason for it.fathoms_basic

What previous big name PC developer that is known for quality games in the past 5 years has "switched" from PC to Consoles? Stop acting like these developers have abandoned PC, cause its far from the case.

Bioware is currently developing a PC exclusive, not to mention they've brought every game they've made to PC. Valve is still focused on PC. Epic is bringing Gears to PC with over 20% exclusive content, and UT3 will probably have the most value on PC, especially in the long term. Relic makes excellent PC exclusives. Don't even get me started on Blizzard.

You keep bringing up Crytek....I have yet to see a quote from them that shows they are somehow switching from PC to PS3....or that PC is no longer their preferred development platform.

And I'm enjoying three generations of games on my PS3.fathoms_basic

You do realize that PC can play games from years back on a new PC?

Not only that, on the flip side, a PC from as far back as 3 years ago, like a 2004, does have the capability to play games that were released this year, maybe not Crysis, but someone with a 6800 series can enjoy Bioshock and medium settings.

Can an Xbox that was purchased in 2004 play Bioshock at all? Can a PS2 play any Heavenly Sword?.....No.

Do some research on the matter, and then maybe you can talk. Until then, don't bother. Glaucoma and those who work on PCs their entire lives go together like peanut butter and jelly. You're wasting my time on this.fathoms_basic

Give me a break....and stop fudging the facts. A PC LCD monitor is no more harmful to someone health then an HDTV.

Field of view? Is this the argument you PC elitists are clinging to, now?fathoms_basic

Yeah...Field of View...you know, the area of your vision. When you're sitting in front of a 24 or 30 inch monitor, it takes up most of your viewing area, just as much as an HDTV.

And how about instead of asking people....you sit them down with something like Bioshock in front of a 30 inch widescreen and then in front of a 52 inch HDTV....I can bet the experience will be just as enjoyable.

I hope PC gaming dies out soon because it's a colossal waste of everyone's time and money

fathoms_basic

People like you have been yapping on about the "downward spiral" or "death" of PC gaming since the mid-90's.....hell, last gen your kind was at their loudest about PC Gamings death around 2002.....funny how two years later was one of the best years in PC gaming.

Yep.....PC gaming is kinda like the nameless one from PT......happily "dying" for years, yet also always coming back stronger.

I also look forward to this so called death of PC gaming people like you go on about every gen....cause it's usually a year or two after that it enjoys a big resurgence.

Funny how PC gaming is dead while it just keeps getting better every year. Oh yeah, and 8 million (greater than the number of PS3 owners by the way) WoW subscribers would also beg to disagree that PC gaming is on the decline.MarcusAntonius

actually that example works agaisnt you... 8 million WoW addicts mean most of their time and money is going into that one single game while they ignore the rest of the PC outings.

if 8 million people boughttoyotas cars and ignored all the rest.... it wouldn't be smart to say "the car industry is doing just fine"when other companies are going out of business

actually that example works agaisnt you... 8 million WoW addicts mean most of their time and money is going into that one single game while they ignore the rest of the PC outings.

if 8 million people boughttoyotas cars and ignored all the rest.... it wouldn't be smart to say "the car industry is doing just fine"when other companies are going out of business

smerlus

Not necessarily, because other quality PC developers are enjoying the same or greater profits and success since late 2004 then before....HL2 came out roughly the same time as WoW, the PC version still sold over 4 miilion just in retail (not counting Steam sales) and is probable Valve's most profitable title.
Battlefield 2 came out in 2005...and has sold over 2 million copies.
FEAR for PC, though not a mega hit, was still Monolith's most successful title, probably in the history of the company....far more successful then Condemned for 360.....in other words, Monolith's most successful PC game was during the time certain people are proclaiming as a PC gaming downward spiral.

Or how about the best example....Guild Wars...a game in the same exact genre of WoW....probably the best example of a direct competitor on the same platform in about the same time frame....yet it sold over 2 million copies.

So if WoW has diverted PC gamers attention from other games...then how come other developers have enjoyed great success after the release of WoW.....in some cases, like with Monolith, their games released after WoW were more successful then the ones before.

Also, just as you said WoW being an example of a certain series taking a majority of gamers dollars and time on a system...can't the same be said for consoles...where certain series get all the numbers, while other excellent series flounder.

For example, No game on Xbox has nearly the numbers, both in sales and time spent online, that Halo or Halo 2 had....not even half...the same effect happens on other consoles....so can't it be said many great console games also get ignored while time is spent on more popular series.

Or how about how DS and casual games seem to dominate the "console" sales charts.

The point that he was bringing up is that their are quite a large number of people that enjoy gaming in front of a PC, and will gladly pay to do so...in addition, there are developers getting profits and rewards that they just couldnt get on consoles....Blizzard is one example....WoW's 8 million subscribers is proof of that.

In other words...companies like Blizzard, Valve, Arenanet....and even Monolith has enjoyed their greatest successes during a time certain uninformed people are claiming the death of PC gaming....yet again.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]Funny how PC gaming is dead while it just keeps getting better every year. Oh yeah, and 8 million (greater than the number of PS3 owners by the way) WoW subscribers would also beg to disagree that PC gaming is on the decline.smerlus

actually that example works agaisnt you... 8 million WoW addicts mean most of their time and money is going into that one single game while they ignore the rest of the PC outings.

if 8 million people boughttoyotas cars and ignored all the rest.... it wouldn't be smart to say "the car industry is doing just fine"when other companies are going out of business

How would that work against me? Check your logic, because what you just posted is strictly from outer space, no offense. That was merely an example I posted.

Fathoms, no offense because I don't know you. However, your post spews of ignorance towards PC gaming. PC gaming is not going anywhere, it is stronger then it has always been. In fact, I think PC gaming has always been more successful world wide compared to console gaming. It simply doesn't flaunt itself on commercials -- because it's consumers do not require it to!

The illusion that PC gaming is dying
The major difference is, console gaming is marketed at a much higher level then PC gaming - the reason being, PC gamers at most will rely on a gaming website for their news, and do not require a TV commericial to tell them what is good. This effect creates an illusion to those unfamiliar with the PC market, that it is "dying" or almost non-existant, where this is not the case! For as long as I remember, consoles have been mimicking PCs to cater towards those who are not tech savy enough to game on a PC. This as far as I am concerned is a fact. Now, I'm not saying all console gamers are "noobs", because that is far from the truth, but what I am saying is there are only a handful of "non-tech savy" are PC gamers.

PC gaming is more expensive then Console gaming
PC gaming is not always more expensive then Console gaming. I'll use myself as an example.

Console: $3700+
Samsung 40in 71F model - $2600
Sony 5.1 surround sound system - $600
Xbox 360 premium - $400
Xbox Live - $50 a year

PC: $2500
See my signature for specs. See blog for even more details. Includes price of 2ms 22inch Samsung display AND peripherals.

Note, that these are just my low balled costs for PC gaming and Console gaming. Funny thing is, people fail to realize that just like PC gaming, console gaming ALSO has it's fair share of "Ultimate Rigs". Take my TV for instance, how many of you actually own a 120hz television set? Have full 1080p over component cables? Have full Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound? Have a 15,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio on your set? Have an 8ms response time?

Guess what, you can get all of that PLUS more on a 22inch COMPUTER monitor for under $200, when you consider a 22inch monitor has more viewing area for it's user that a 40 inch television since you sit so much closer to the monitor.

If you dont have these kind of features in your TV, then guess what, believe it or not you are missing out on the potential of BOTH your PS3 and you xbox 360. Yes, you have to look at the total picture, you can not just look at one piece of the entire pie, as all of these pieces contribute to the overall experiance. Otherwise you may as well try to convince someone an xbox 360 on a black/white TV with mono sound, is as good as a N64 game on a 480p capable television in Dolby Prologic II.

PC gaming is dying / People only play WoW >_>
Someone really needs to do a survey of PC gaming versus Console gaming. To be perfectly honest, I am pretty sure there are more PC gamers world wide compared to console gamers. This is especially true when it comes to online gaming. Of course, this is only an assumption based on my own personal experiance and not based on any statistics. However, if you simply take a glance over at XFire.com, a program that is only used by a minority of PC gamers, you will quickly notice how many people actually game on the PC.

You have to upgrade every year
No, you can choose to upgrade every year, that is a feature that is not mandatory on anyone. My brother is currently playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars BETA on a 3.5 year old computer.

Bottom Line
Now, once again, before this thread gets locked for being extremely system warish -- which it has already become -- let me just say, that in my experiance there are very few people who have actually gamed on both sides of the fence. While the majority simply make assumptions based on loose fact.

The fact of the matter is, both have their pros and cons, both have their userbases. It is up to you to decide which, if not both, groups is right for you by evaluting the pros and cons.

Ah yes...the whole "PC gaming is dying" argument certain uninformed people cling to...the one that gets debunked every gen.

Check some sales numbers for PC software between 2001 and today, and then compare that directly to console releases. Have fun doing that, by the way. There's a reason why shelf space in GameStop/EB dropped from an allotted 12 feet to 3-6 feet in the span of a few years, but hey, you're not interested in reality.

I havent heard of any major bugs, other then the copy protection issue, which was resolved...and like I said, given the anticipated specs, most posts I've seen on PC gaming forums are surprised Bioshock runs on older hardware from two years ago as well as it does.

Yeah. 2K just decided to apologize for the heck of it. Good call. :roll:

The number of Steam accounts is larger then that of Xbox Live! accounts, and with the Steam versions Valve enjoys full control over their IP and full profits, something they wont get with Live! or Playstation Network.

You're making absolutely no point, here. You initially made the misinformed claim that most PC games in the future would get exclusive downloadable content that console versions of the same game would never see, and I'm telling you not only will they get such content, console versions will probably get exclusive downloadable content of their own. Many of it is already planned for PC/console mulitplats, if you hadn't noticed.

For the initial hardware, yes, it is more expensive.

Thank you, that has been my whole point from the beginning, minus the overall point that it's more expensive no matter how you twist it.

PC gamers also enjoy certain benefits console games will never have.

For example, one can get a more enhanced experience with the PC version of Oblivion compared to the console version...you know that whole "leveling" aspect that annoyed many people with the whole world leveling with you....guess what, on the PC you have the option to get rid of it....can't do that on console.

Well holy crap. That must mean Oblivion on the 360 is a waste of time. ...could you possibly come up with a more trivial and random point? How far are you reaching?

Really?....How many editors choice (ie AAA) games has PS3 had this year at Gamespot in comparison to PC?....how about 360?

How many did Xbox have in comparison to PC from 2001 - 2005?

Oh, I see, we're going by Gamerankings....so Three times as many?

Check again....Xbox 360 has had a whopping three games released this year that broke the 90% review average....

Guess how many releases PS3 has had this year that broke the 90% review average....One...Oblivion...a game that was on PC last year.

guess how many PC has.....Three....just as many as 360 so far this year...and more then PS3.

This whole time, I have been giving you a break and including both the PS3 and Xbox 360 versus the PC, because my original point is that even if you have both, it's still cheaper than a gaming PC. And that remains true. Therefore, you must include BOTH sets of games because owners can play both PS3 and Xbox 360 games. If that's the case, you're in serious trouble. On top of which, if you take ANY two consoles of the last generation - and God help you if you choose the PS2 and Xbox - and they would vastly outstrip the PC's quality game frequency. And any two would be far, far cheaper than any solid PC gaming would be, using your own numbers. I've done this before and the numbers even surprised me.

My point remains, and so do the facts.

Yeah....and compare the titles released on PC in 2002 to the ones released in 2004....yet were able to run just effectively on a 9700 or even 9500 series, both cards which released in 2002.

...I don't even get the point of this. You made the initial - and gigantic - mistake by somehow assuming that PCs are the only gaming platform to show visual gains over a normal console lifespan. Thta was wrong, and it's still wrong. You will NOT make it all the way through one console generation without ever having to change a damn thing in your PC, and even if you DON'T, you still paid more for the gaming PC than any two consoles!

You keep bringing up Crytek....I have yet to see a quote from them that shows they are somehow switching from PC to PS3....or that PC is no longer their preferred development platform.

That's because you don't bother to keep up with the news. During a recent interview, Crytek said they're "heavily invested" in PS3 development, and Cevat Yerli provided the following quotes-

"We're optimising technology...for the future in general, there is a dedicated PS3 team."

"The PS3 room is separate because we have some secret technologies being developed there which are not related to CryEngine 2."

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1756.html

I wrote it.

Not only that, on the flip side, a PC from as far back as 3 years ago, like a 2004, does have the capability to play games that were released this year, maybe not Crysis, but someone with a 6800 series can enjoy Bioshock and medium settings.

Oh, not Crysis? What about this mess about not having to upgrade since 2003? What happened to that? Gee, I'll be able to play MGS 4, FF XIII, GT 5, and Killzone 2 while still being able to play MGS, FF VII, and GT on the PS3. Again, do you have a point?

Yeah...Field of View...you know, the area of your vision. When you're sitting in front of a 24 or 30 inch monitor, it takes up most of your viewing area, just as much as an HDTV.

And how about instead of asking people....you sit them down with something like Bioshock in front of a 30 inch widescreen and then in front of a 52 inch HDTV....I can bet the experience will be just as enjoyable.

Wait, what happened to the PC monitor being a superior experience? Why are we back-pedelaing to the point where it's "just as enjoyable?"

People like you have been yapping on about the "downward spiral" or "death" of PC gaming since the mid-90's.....hell, last gen your kind was at their loudest about PC Gamings death around 2002.....funny how two years later was one of the best years in PC gaming.

Yep.....PC gaming is kinda like the nameless one from PT......happily "dying" for years, yet also always coming back stronger.

I also look forward to this so called death of PC gaming people like you go on about every gen....cause it's usually a year or two after that it enjoys a big resurgence.

It's a bad idea to make any assumptions about me, my friend. I started gaming on PCs probably before you were even born, and I was very much against anyone who tried to say PC gaming was dying last generation. Some of the best years in PC gaming were in the mid-90s, and if you really believe there has been a year that even remotely stands up to some of those years since, you're too biased for words. See, console gaming doesn't have any "resurgences," because that implies there was a heavy downswing...which the PC seems to be permanently mired in. Now, it seems maybe one game every six months might provide a "resurgence," if you can even call it that. Every gaming veteran who has been following both industries for decades - and who isn't irretrievably biased - will make the exact same observation-

PC gaming is going down and console gaming is going up. I can't possibly make it any simpler than that. It's a fact, and one you can either accept or deny...but it won't change the fact. In the mid-90s, I would play Baldurs Gate, Half-Life, Diablo, Command & Conquer, etc. on my PC and be forced to play far inferior FPSs like Medal of Honor on the PS1 (although I've never believed PC RPGs were anywhere near as good as console RPGs, even then). Yeah, Half-Life vs. MoH or Perfect Dark...as if that was a fair comparison. Now, the gap has narrowed to the point where it's basically non-existent, and you die-hard PC gamers just can't accept this. I'm sorry, but again, that ain't my fault.

The major difference is, console gaming is marketed at a much higher level then PC gaming - the reason being, PC gamers at most will rely on a gaming website for their news, and do not require a TV commericial to tell them what is good. This effect creates an illusion to those unfamiliar with the PC market, that it is "dying" or almost non-existant, where this is not the case! For as long as I remember, consoles have been mimicking PCs to cater towards those who are not tech savy enough to game on a PC. This as far as I am concerned is a fact. Now, I'm not saying all console gamers are "noobs", because that is far from the truth, but what I am saying is there are only a handful of "non-tech savy" are PC gamers.

Oh, that's very convenient. Yes, the profits for PC software have been going down since the turn of the century according to all major retailers, but there aren't any commercials because the consumers are savvy enough to know what's good. That's not only a thinly veiled jab at console gamers, it's also wrong. There's no "illusion." Facts are facts; numbers are numbers.

PC gaming is more expensive then Console gaming
PC gaming is not always more expensive then Console gaming. I'll use myself as an example.

Console: $3700+
Samsung 40in 71F model - $2600
Sony 5.1 surround sound system - $600
Xbox 360 premium - $400
Xbox Live - $50 a year

PC: $2500
See my signature for specs. See blog for even more details. Includes price of 2ms 22inch Samsung display AND peripherals.

Note, that these are just my low balled costs for PC gaming and Console gaming. Funny thing is, people fail to realize that just like PC gaming, console gaming ALSO has it's fair share of "Ultimate Rigs". Take my TV for instance, how many of you actually own a 120hz television set? Have full 1080p over component cables? Have full Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound? Have a 15,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio on your set? Have an 8ms response time?

Guess what, you can get all of that PLUS more on a 22inch COMPUTER monitor for under $200, when you consider a 22inch monitor has more viewing area for it's user that a 40 inch television since you sit so much closer to the monitor.

If you dont have these kind of features in your TV, then guess what, believe it or not you are missing out on the potential of BOTH your PS3 and you xbox 360. Yes, you have to look at the total picture, you can not just look at one piece of the entire pie, as all of these pieces contribute to the overall experiance. Otherwise you may as well try to convince someone an xbox 360 on a black/white TV with mono sound, is as good as a N64 game on a 480p capable television in Dolby Prologic II.

First of all, you overpaid like a madman for your TV. I can get a 37" HDTV with 1080p capability for $1600, and that's already bigger than any PC monitor. You all want to talk about capabilities of the PC, and yet I'm wondering why nobody has brought up Blu-Ray for the PS3. Or the fact that you bought your TV for something besides gaming (and if you didn't, I'm not sure what's wrong with you). Everyone says the PS3 is ridiculously overpriced, and yet, it's not only the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market, it's ALSO the only player that can play both DVDs and Blu-Ray at the moment.

"Ultimate experience?" And like the other guy, you're trying to tell me you will require NO changes and NO upgrades that will cost money over the span of 5-8 years with your PC? Because don't bother trying to play that card; I'm sick of hearing it. I know plenty of PC gamers, and not a one will agree with that, regardless of how heavily they support PC gaming.

PC gaming is dying / People only play WoW >_>
Someone really needs to do a survey of PC gaming versus Console gaming. To be perfectly honest, I am pretty sure there are more PC gamers world wide compared to console gamers. This is especially true when it comes to online gaming. Of course, this is only an assumption based on my own personal experiance and not based on any statistics. However, if you simply take a glance over at XFire.com, a program that is only used by a minority of PC gamers, you will quickly notice how many people actually game on the PC.

I never said anything about WoW, and I'm sure there are more PC gamers...provided you include casual gamers. Why? Because the PC is a typical fixture of a household, which means anybody can play a game here and there. I'd be very interested to see how many avid gamers there are between PC and console; the stereotype that all console gamers are just casuals is dead flat wrong in the first place. There are far more PC casual gamers, for the very reason I just stated. Numbers get skewed when polls are taken and those who play Solitaire for a half-hour before bed say they "played a video game in the past week."

You have to upgrade every year
No, you can choose to upgrade every year, that is a feature that is not mandatory on anyone. My brother is currently playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars BETA on a 3.5 year old computer.

Never said you had to upgrade every year. I very specifically said you would have to upgrade at least once in the typical lifespan of a console, which remains true. And that completely debunks your pricing argument, as I outlined above.

Bottom Line
Now, once again, before this thread gets locked for being extremely system warish -- which it has already become -- let me just say, that in my experiance there are very few people who have actually gamed on both sides of the fence. While the majority simply make assumptions based on loose fact.

The fact of the matter is, both have their pros and cons, both have their userbases. It is up to you to decide which, if not both, groups is right for you by evaluting the pros and cons.

I'm aware of all this. However, my point is very simple- the pros and cons between the two platforms have changed very significantly over the past decade, and it has been more pros for one and more cons for the other. That much is painfully obvious, I think, and anybody who denies it is simply...well, in denial. This is my one and only point, and it's no surprise that die-hard PC gamers can't accept it. But that doesn't change anything.

360 if you have a big HD TV if not use your 360 controller on games for the PC