Consoles: Saving PC Gamers $ Since 2005

The one massive benefit of this epicly long console cycle is that most games don't utilize the true potential of PC (save for BF3/Metro/Witcher 2/Crysis 1)

PC gamers get multiplats, and while vastly superior on PC, is mostly just a graphically upgraded version of the console release.

So - I've spent almost no $ since ~2008 when I built a new box to run Crysis ... and then a video card for Metro in 2009.

In the long run I'm thinking long console cycles are actually a good thing, we get the same games with better graphics/controls and extremely cheap deals on Steam; all the while spending almost 0 on upgrades.

Before this cycle of consoles I would do a video card upgrade every 2 years, now I don't even need to do that.

On top of all this savings, we get the best indie games like Magicka/Amnesia. Now is the best time its ever been for PC gamers.

While I look forward to BF3, and I will buy a new PC to play it, part of me laments the fact that developers are now turning their eyes to PC - our costs could go up!

Kind of... having to optimise for consoles so much just means it will run a lot better on PC whilst looking better too. We need new consoles though, and fast!SaltyMeatballs

I don't know if we do need new consoles, GTA4/Skyrim which are PC-esque games run great on console. Console only gamers don't want the expense, and PC gamers are now getting PC-specific titles like BF3/Witcher 2 ...

I think a balance may have been struck.

But console development costs bring our games to 60 bucks as well.

Steam has been saving me a ton of money lately. consoles just break down and make me buy a new one.

But console development costs bring our games to 60 bucks as well.

Steam has been saving me a ton of money lately. consoles just break down and make me buy a new one.

ChubbyGuy40

Inflation brings our games to $60. Realistically the price of games hasn't changed for 20 years, adjusted for inflation we should be paying $80!

I don´t really feel that,I bougth way more PC games this gen than console games and yet I feel that I´ve spent more overall on the console ones.

I gotta agree. I built my PC over 5 years ago and the only thing I have upgraded in it is the GPU. And I only did that because my 8800GTS went out. I upgraded to a 9800GT for $100. I do plan on building a PC in the near future. Guessing I will spend around $2,000+ to build it. And my current PC goes to my girl when I do that and her current goes to the kids.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Kind of... having to optimise for consoles so much just means it will run a lot better on PC whilst looking better too. We need new consoles though, and fast!haberman13

I don't know if we do need new consoles, GTA4/Skyrim which are PC-esque games run great on console. Console only gamers don't want the expense, and PC gamers are now getting PC-specific titles like BF3/Witcher 2 ...

I think a balance may have been struck.

I completely agree with this sentiment.

Multiplatform development can save everyone money! Developers can raise money by having crap ports to the PC. This gives them money so they make their next console game better than the previous.

Multiplatform development can save everyone money! Developers can raise money by having crap ports to the PC. This gives them money so they make their next console game better than the previous.

alfredooo

Like BioWare is doing with TOR, right?

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

Multiplatform development can save everyone money! Developers can raise money by having crap ports to the PC. This gives them money so they make their next console game better than the previous.

Mograine

Like BioWare is doing with TOR, right?

no.

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

Multiplatform development can save everyone money! Developers can raise money by having crap ports to the PC. This gives them money so they make their next console game better than the previous.

alfredooo

Like BioWare is doing with TOR, right?

no.

You're original statement should have been: they make crap console games to fund their big budget PC games (ToR)

no.

alfredooo

What's wrong, your whole whine about "computization" of games is rubbing you the wrong way now?

It's more like there is more money in developing games for the console, so now PC games are a thing of the past.... Us PC'ers now have to suffer with main stream ideals of making difficult games accessible to everyone, with markers to point the way to objectives, fast travel to bypass all the enemies along the way, and simplified 3 value stats.

It's more like there is more money in developing games for the console, so now PC games are a thing of the past.... Us PC'ers now have to suffer with main stream ideals of making difficult games accessible to everyone, with markers to point the way to objectives, fast travel to bypass all the enemies along the way, and simplified 3 value stats.

Threesixtyci

Not true actually. Console games profit margin is dramatically lower than PC.

You CAN make more on console, but the average game makes a LOT less profit than your avg. PC game.

The other consolification things ... really bug me too.

I don't consider technological stagnation a benefit, at all. Sure being able to run games on the cheap is nice, but there is a point when you want to move forward. That was in 2008/9, it is 2011, and we are still made to look at console graphics.

I have four times as much memory on my GPU as the PS3 does, how long do I have to keep looking at console textures? Freaking Crysis 2, a name that is suppose to represent pushing tech forward, had console textures...

[QUOTE="Threesixtyci"]

It's more like there is more money in developing games for the console, so now PC games are a thing of the past.... Us PC'ers now have to suffer with main stream ideals of making difficult games accessible to everyone, with markers to point the way to objectives, fast travel to bypass all the enemies along the way, and simplified 3 value stats.

haberman13

Not true actually. Console games profit margin is dramatically lower than PC.

You CAN make more on console, but the average game makes a LOT less profit than your avg. PC game.

The other consolification things ... really bug me too.

Well there is the piracy factor to consider, as well....Threesixtyci

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Kind of... having to optimise for consoles so much just means it will run a lot better on PC whilst looking better too. We need new consoles though, and fast!haberman13

I don't know if we do need new consoles, GTA4/Skyrim which are PC-esque games run great on console. Console only gamers don't want the expense, and PC gamers are now getting PC-specific titles like BF3/Witcher 2 ...

I think a balance may have been struck.

saving me money? i haven't seen starcraft 2 on consoles... ;) so they aren't saving me any money...

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

no.

Mograine

What's wrong, your whole whine about "computization" of games is rubbing you the wrong way now?

that's completely different from devs releasing crap pc ports of console games. Why must my new statement also apply to TOR? did I say it applied to all games? no, I didn't. Then what the hell are you talking about?

There isn't a single multiplat in existence that is better on console.

M-a-y-b-e GTA4 for the first few months.

Otherwise, PC versions are as a rule dramatically superior to their console counterpart.

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

Like BioWare is doing with TOR, right?

haberman13

no.

You're original statement should have been: they make crap console games to fund their big budget PC games (ToR)

That might actually apply to DA2, so I agree with you there. Sadly, I wouldn't call ME 1 & 2 (both console games) "crap". So at regarding Bioware, making crap console games to fund their big budget PC titles can only be applied to their only "crap" game, DA2.

There isn't a single multiplat in existence that is better on console.

M-a-y-b-e GTA4 for the first few months.

Otherwise, PC versions are as a rule dramatically superior to their console counterpart.

haberman13

PC versions always have the POTENTIAL to be better than the console ones. Potential is a key word there. Back in the day when I tried to run Morrowind in my laptop the performance was pretty poor, I would have taken the xbox version over it anyday. In that sense, my pc version wasn't superior. Of course, when I later got a much better computer I was able to run the game much better than the xbox, add some mods in and the pc version is miles ahead of the console version.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Kind of... having to optimise for consoles so much just means it will run a lot better on PC whilst looking better too. We need new consoles though, and fast!haberman13

I don't know if we do need new consoles, GTA4/Skyrim which are PC-esque games run great on console. Console only gamers don't want the expense, and PC gamers are now getting PC-specific titles like BF3/Witcher 2 ...

I think a balance may have been struck.

You may have a point... Still, I wish this generation consoles would die fast, to give way to far better hardware. We need a tech accelaration...

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

There isn't a single multiplat in existence that is better on console.

M-a-y-b-e GTA4 for the first few months.

Otherwise, PC versions are as a rule dramatically superior to their console counterpart.

alfredooo

PC versions always have the POTENTIAL to be better than the console ones. Potential is a key word there. Back in the day when I tried to run Morrowind in my laptop the performance was pretty poor, I would have taken the xbox version over it anyday. In that sense, my pc version wasn't superior. Of course, when I later got a much better computer I was able to run the game much better than the xbox, add some mods in and the pc version is miles ahead of the console version.

Morrowind + laptop = fail

Gaming + laptop = fail

In fact, your argument is awful. You are basically saying, yeah multiplats on PC are better, unless you have awful hardware. Are you intentionally being illogical?

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 -- See how pessimistic haberman13 can get day!

--

I think this should be posted somewhere on GS:

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

There isn't a single multiplat in existence that is better on console.

M-a-y-b-e GTA4 for the first few months.

Otherwise, PC versions are as a rule dramatically superior to their console counterpart.

haberman13

PC versions always have the POTENTIAL to be better than the console ones. Potential is a key word there. Back in the day when I tried to run Morrowind in my laptop the performance was pretty poor, I would have taken the xbox version over it anyday. In that sense, my pc version wasn't superior. Of course, when I later got a much better computer I was able to run the game much better than the xbox, add some mods in and the pc version is miles ahead of the console version.

Morrowind + laptop = fail

Gaming + laptop = fail

In fact, your argument is awful. You are basically saying, yeah multiplats on PC are better, unless you have awful hardware. Are you intentionally being illogical?

Morrowind on my laptop was just an example, dude. My point is that not all PC gamers can actually get superior versions to consoles, they need certain hardware to do so. But you know that.... this shouldn't even be an argument. PC versions have the potential to be better than console ones, as long as you have the necessary hardware to actually make it better. :? How is this arguement awful? Is it even an argument? I'm just stating the facts.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

PC versions always have the POTENTIAL to be better than the console ones. Potential is a key word there. Back in the day when I tried to run Morrowind in my laptop the performance was pretty poor, I would have taken the xbox version over it anyday. In that sense, my pc version wasn't superior. Of course, when I later got a much better computer I was able to run the game much better than the xbox, add some mods in and the pc version is miles ahead of the console version.

alfredooo

Morrowind + laptop = fail

Gaming + laptop = fail

In fact, your argument is awful. You are basically saying, yeah multiplats on PC are better, unless you have awful hardware. Are you intentionally being illogical?

Morrowind on my laptop was just an example, dude. My point is that not all PC gamers can actually get superior versions to consoles, they need certain hardware to do so. But you know that.... this shouldn't even be an argument. PC versions have the potential to be better than console ones, as long as you have the necessary hardware to actually make it better. :? How is this arguement awful? Is it even an argument? I'm just stating the facts.

Your statement was a misdirect to remove the blatant owning PC has on multiplats. You are stating a fact, one that has no bearing on this conversation. (or are you suggesting PC games need a qualifier of: this won't necessarily look as good on your hardware)

Sure, some people have fail hardware, that doesn't invalidate the fact that a PC multiplat is dramatically superior. If it isn't you don't have a gaming PC.

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

Morrowind + laptop = fail

Gaming + laptop = fail

In fact, your argument is awful. You are basically saying, yeah multiplats on PC are better, unless you have awful hardware. Are you intentionally being illogical?

haberman13

Morrowind on my laptop was just an example, dude. My point is that not all PC gamers can actually get superior versions to consoles, they need certain hardware to do so. But you know that.... this shouldn't even be an argument. PC versions have the potential to be better than console ones, as long as you have the necessary hardware to actually make it better. :? How is this arguement awful? Is it even an argument? I'm just stating the facts.

Your statement was a misdirect to remove the blatant owning PC has on multiplats.

whatever you say, dude. I'm not bashing anything here, I said that PC versions have the potential to be superior. I'm pretty much praising PC gaming here. I'm just stating the facts here but apparently you didn't like that so you labeled them as an "awful argument".

So is this the glass is half full version of "consoles are holding back PC with their outdated hardware"?

Morrowind on my laptop was just an example, dude. My point is that not all PC gamers can actually get superior versions to consoles, they need certain hardware to do so. But you know that.... this shouldn't even be an argument. PC versions have the potential to be better than console ones, as long as you have the necessary hardware to actually make it better. :? How is this arguement awful? Is it even an argument? I'm just stating the facts.

alfredooo

You could build a computer for 300-400 that would be many times more superior in performance than any console.

If you already have a PC then it can be much less with a simple upgrade.

If someone doesn't have a computer as strong as a console then their computer is seriously outdated.

My friend has an old 2004 PC that is stronger than consoles.

Gaming + laptop = fail

Gaming laptops are not fail.

They just cost a bit more than what you can get with a desktop.

But atleast they come with a screen so you don't have to worry about that.

You can get a laptop for around 600USD that teasily beats consoles and can run most games at high settings and most multiplats at max.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215037

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

But console development costs bring our games to 60 bucks as well.

Steam has been saving me a ton of money lately. consoles just break down and make me buy a new one.

haberman13

Inflation brings our games to $60. Realistically the price of games hasn't changed for 20 years, adjusted for inflation we should be paying $80!

Lucky bastrds ;) Danes pay the equivalent of 100 for console games right now.

Gaming laptops are not fail.

They just cost a bit more than what you can get with a desktop.

But atleast they come with a screen so you don't have to worry about that.

You can get a laptop for around 600USD that teasily beats consoles and can run most games at high settings and most multiplats at max.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215037

BanMido76

Gaming laptops are not fail.

They just cost a bit more than what you can get with a desktop.

But atleast they come with a screen so you don't have to worry about that.

You can get a laptop for around 600USD that teasily beats consoles and can run most games at high settings and most multiplats at max.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215037

BanMido76

If you NEED a laptop, then of course what else can you do?

If there is any possible way to not game on a laptop, that must become priority. Laptop upgrades are basically pointless, other than RAM, and cost a LOT more than a desktop and run games dramatically worse. (I've had two work supplied laptops that were gaming grade (Lenovo W series)) there is no comparison to a desktop.

That said, with todays hardware and console multiplats even a laptop would be fine. BF3 on the other hand ....

Gaming laptops are not fail.

They just cost a bit more than what you can get with a desktop.

But atleast they come with a screen so you don't have to worry about that.

You can get a laptop for around 600USD that teasily beats consoles and can run most games at high settings and most multiplats at max.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215037

BanMido76

Ok, I agree with that... beats consoles for sure. But still, if you want to PC game, the goal should be desktop.

That laptop + a desktop would be cheap as well; so if you need a laptop - bam!

He's right, that laptop should be able to run Crysis on high at 33 fps. Metro 2033 can only achieve medium though.DragonfireXZ95

It might run metro 2033 on high if in directx 9 mode.

Ok, I agree with that... beats consoles for sure. But still, if you want to PC game, the goal should be desktop.

That laptop + a desktop would be cheap as well; so if you need a laptop - bam!

haberman13

Well I am just showing that a laptop can be good but you will need to spend a little more.

I would advise for a gaming desktop but not everyone wants one.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]He's right, that laptop should be able to run Crysis on high at 33 fps. Metro 2033 can only achieve medium though.BanMido76

It might run metro 2033 on high if in directx 9 mode.

The benchmark says 18 fps avg for the card. But that could be at a higher res, it doesn't say the resolution or if it's DX9.DragonfireXZ95

Yah I saw that on notebookcheck.net.

Can't be sure like you said.

I don't consider technological stagnation a benefit, at all. Sure being able to run games on the cheap is nice, but there is a point when you want to move forward. That was in 2008/9, it is 2011, and we are still made to look at console graphics.

I have four times as much memory on my GPU as the PS3 does, how long do I have to keep looking at console textures? Freaking Crysis 2, a name that is suppose to represent pushing tech forward, had console textures...

AnnoyedDragon

it's good for pc gaming to slow down. More people will be able to play games on their pc. Most people i know just are not willing to upgrade. Makes your pc last longer and saves on hardware costs.

i am sooo tired of crybaby pc kids. this forum has gone from ... well, it's always been annoying crap... but it used to have some variety. now all i see is one complaint after another of victimized pc fanboys.

I get it, you kids are the masters of spamming... is that why you are spamming the boards with rhetoric?

That's all you're doing. You're deliberatley clogging the forums with rhetoric.

I'm hoping Wii 2 puts a spin on multiplatform graphics quality, with the Wii 2 and PC getting the better side of things (and hopefully the PC being even higher) with the PS3 and 360 getting the "lower versions".

and yet the most popular games on PC are the least graphically intensive like the Sims WoW and farmville. Funny how that works huh?

hmmm you know what, to an extent i kinda agree with you.