Is there still a debate about PC being the best?

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]its always going to be cheaper with consoles, you can't beat a used 360 and used games, and secondly, i have steam and i bought the bfbc2 game on it, and wish i hadn't, nothing wrong with steam but after getting back into pc gaming again after enjoying my console so much, not much has changed, i'm still waiting for patches so i can even play the dam game. Disconnects, PB disconnects, i'm even getting a bsod, crash to desktop. It takes like 10 mins to find a server because 9/10 times when i try to join it doens't do anything or just says disconnected. PC gaming hasn't come nearly as far as i had hoped savagetwinkie

Not necessarily, especially if you want to play that game of yours on a large HDTV. Or years down the line, when you factor in game costs and other accesories -- I can see the PC being the cheaper option. As for BC2, That isn't a fault with PC gaming itself -- but more-so lies within the issue with the developer. I can list you plenty of games that had issues on consoles at the time of launch. It's unfortuate, but sometimes you just have to be patient with things. I suggest reading this thread here, it has plenty of information that will help you with your issue.

Consoles are cheaper in the beggining,PC is much,much cheaper in the long run.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]the server issues have been fixed, but i'm still having issues, lots of issues, i think its mainly due to win7 x64 , but i'm not sure and i really don't want to reinstall my other OS just for bfbc2. This is the problem with pc gaming is there are so many things that could be wrong with it. The fixed the servers so now people can play the game but now since my particular setup isn't friendly with the game i have to figure out why, is it something i can fix. I talked to an ea rep already and they couldn't help. but if i had it for the 360 its much much simpler, basicly, is it plugged in? did i turn my 360 on? am i behind a strict nat? Its a complete issue with PC gaming because devs can't account for every possible setup on a pc, so you end up with really strange and unexpected problems, Stevo_the_gamer

That OS is supported and recommended by the video game developer. I don't think that's your issue. Again, I think it's just a developer issue -- not an issue with PC gaming itself. The developers do not have to account for every possible setup, they have a mininum set of specs and if you don't reach them -- that's your fault, not the developers. Microsoft however does with its software, in terms of taking into account every setup. And it's a marvel that they're able to do it. Mac has it easy with it's closed and proprietary architecture with the OS and hardware closely linked. PC gaming can be complicated at times, but in the overall picture, it's much brighter than console gaming. Much brighter.

high end gaming pc is only small portion of pc sales each year. majority pc doesnt even have a video card on it, and they use onboard chips to run graphics. anyway, they can still play games like farmville, so they are qualified as gaming pc, but those pc cant beat 360/ps3. i dont care you compare 360/ps3 to a small portion high end pc cuz they are just a small portion of pc sales. In fact, 360/PS3 is way way better than PC in every aspect for gaming, especially for action games.

again the console version is already proven to be more stable, people are having issues with the PC version because of unexpected problems, its not just the dev's fault when so many games on pc do this,for instance i was going to play bioshock before i bought 2, when i reinstalled it, it didn't work, now i could have spent hours figureing it out, instead i just went and grabbed the console version cheap, and called it a day.This is a problem with PC gaming when you have so many setups games tend to not work properly for some people. My system is better then the requirements, i'm running on a OS that is supported, with all the latest drivers, from a fresh install with pretty much ONLY steam and a virus scan installed, and still having problems. Because console gaming is standardized hardware, it will always be cheaper, and more stable then buying a pc, but since pc is more open there are more things you can do with it. Being an open platform brings this inherent type of incompatibility issues and other problems, thus its a problem with pc gaming.savagetwinkie

Alright, let's put this into perspective. Is it the PS3's fault that Bayonetta on PS3 is so incredibly inferior? Or is it the developers. The Xbox 360 version is damn stable and works wonderfully. The PS3 version? It was plagued with a variety of issues. Developer issue, or issue with the hardware. You tell me. It's funny, the only time I've ever had an issue with installing games is when the game wasn't supported by 64-bit archetecture or just didn't blatantly work on Vista. Far Cry and Act of War comes to mind. On my PS3, I suffer from constant freezing and it corrupts my saves. I guess console gaming is inferior then. On my Xbox 360, I goot the RROD, I guess that means console hardware are inferior as well not to mention unreliable.

I can make sweeping generalizations as well. Like I said before, PC gaming is more expensive up front, but in the long run -- it's much cheaper.

no, because when the next consoles come out, i'm sure it will be cheaper then upgrading my pc to get that type of performance, and when i upgrade my pc to do so it will be 4 years in when the hardware is cheaper and more comparable to when the system first came out. In the long run it all depends on what you buy, i've had 1 controller and a 360 now for 5 years, i've had far more games on it, which is the only reason i have spent more on it. if i'm buying 20 games a month then yah, you'll see a difference, but i'm mainly buying used games, so its not that different then buying PC games, in fact in some cases its cheaper. So buying software and accessories can be cheap for BOTH platforms, but hardware is a different story.savagetwinkie

Sure, when the next console comes out -- you can shell out $400 or $600 for the next console. In a few years, my gaming PC from 2008 will still be trucking along just perfectly. Yet you'll be shelling out $400 or more for a new console, and then paying more for individual games themselves yet I'll still be buying cheaper PC games and not having to spend money to upgarde hardware, and if I do wish to do it, it's cheap and easy to do. If you bought a Xbox 360, and wanted to play online with it for five years -- you just spent $250 for online alone. Yet, that's free on PC (so long as its not an MMO where subscriptions comes into play). If you bought 20 games on the Xbox 360 for full price, you spent $1,200 -- if you bought those same games on PC for full price, you spent $1,000. And you can buy PC games at dirt prices at times whereas only the ****ty console games will be that cheap. Amazing PC games like Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl can be bought for less than $5 at times.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

again the console version is already proven to be more stable, people are having issues with the PC version because of unexpected problems, its not just the dev's fault when so many games on pc do this,for instance i was going to play bioshock before i bought 2, when i reinstalled it, it didn't work, now i could have spent hours figureing it out, instead i just went and grabbed the console version cheap, and called it a day.This is a problem with PC gaming when you have so many setups games tend to not work properly for some people. My system is better then the requirements, i'm running on a OS that is supported, with all the latest drivers, from a fresh install with pretty much ONLY steam and a virus scan installed, and still having problems. Because console gaming is standardized hardware, it will always be cheaper, and more stable then buying a pc, but since pc is more open there are more things you can do with it. Being an open platform brings this inherent type of incompatibility issues and other problems, thus its a problem with pc gaming.Stevo_the_gamer

Alright, let's put this into perspective. Is it the PS3's fault that Bayonetta on PS3 is so incredibly inferior? Or is it the developers. The Xbox 360 version is damn stable and works wonderfully. The PS3 version? It was plagued with a variety of issues. Developer issue, or issue with the hardware. You tell me. It's funny, the only time I've ever had an issue with installing games is when the game wasn't supported by 64-bit archetecture or just didn't blatantly work on Vista. Far Cry and Act of War comes to mind. On my PS3, I suffer from constant freezing and it corrupts my saves. I guess console gaming is inferior then. On my Xbox 360, I goot the RROD, I guess that means console hardware are inferior as well not to mention unreliable.

I can make sweeping generalizations as well. Like I said before, PC gaming is more expensive up front, but in the long run -- it's much cheaper.

developing for the ps3 vs pc is much different and its not the same. Like i said, the dev's can't take into account all the setups that there software will be running on, this is a problem with the PC due to lack of standardization. That is an issue with the PC platform, its an issue for people developing on it, and an issue for people using it. This is why MAC can claim they have a more stable system, because they build there system, where Microsoft just does a really good job accounting for everything windows will go on but it still isn't as good as a mac.

in regards to a ps3 freezing and 360 rrod this is a problem with the hardware which is still possible on the PC. So you have the same issues with hardware failure on all three systems, but only one suffers from the lack of standardized hardware which is the PC. Bayonetta and the ps3 are also different, it works the same across ALL ps3's, where for someone like me, because of my particular setup, for w/e reason i'm having issues with certain games that otherwise should be working perfectly, and have been proven to work perfectly on other peoples setups. Maybe its because i'm using win7 x64, maybe it would be better if i had vista installed, Maybe its my ATI card, maybe i should have gone with NVIDIA. Maybe its my onboard soundcard, maybe i should have gotten a creative. For people with bayonetta can they blame it on having a 60gb launch system, maybe if they bought the slim it would work better?

The only option you have with bayonnetta if you want it to run better is buy a 360, so maybe it was the dev's fault, maybe it was sony's fault, but thats the way it works for everyone ps3 owner. Where for me, bfbc2 has been proven to work perfectly on pc, just not all of them, so thats not really the dev's fault because they have a workign game on the pc, they don't have to take into account every pc made it would just be unrealistic. Its a flaw of PC gaming because i happen to have the perfect combo of software and hardware that breaks the game for my particular setup, and other people are experience the same issue, while other people are not experience this issue.

I hate when people say online gaming is free on the PC. Apparently you people don't pay for your own internet bill.kittyloaf69

Value is relative to the games you want. Even if a top of the line gaming pc was $100 people would still buy consoles for games like Final Fantasy and Darksiders.

The typical consumer is better off getting a console instead of a gaming pc. The convenience and selection outweigh the benefits of pc gaming. Too many new games on the pc are centered around RTS and MMO. But if you are into either of those genres you are better off getting a pc.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]no, because when the next consoles come out, i'm sure it will be cheaper then upgrading my pc to get that type of performance, and when i upgrade my pc to do so it will be 4 years in when the hardware is cheaper and more comparable to when the system first came out. In the long run it all depends on what you buy, i've had 1 controller and a 360 now for 5 years, i've had far more games on it, which is the only reason i have spent more on it. if i'm buying 20 games a month then yah, you'll see a difference, but i'm mainly buying used games, so its not that different then buying PC games, in fact in some cases its cheaper. So buying software and accessories can be cheap for BOTH platforms, but hardware is a different story.Stevo_the_gamer

Sure, when the next console comes out -- you can shell out $400 or $600 for the next console. In a few years, my gaming PC from 2008 will still be trucking along just perfectly. Yet you'll be shelling out $400 or more for a new console, and then paying more for individual games themselves yet I'll still be buying cheaper PC games and not having to spend money to upgarde hardware, and if I do wish to do it, it's cheap and easy to do. If you bought a Xbox 360, and wanted to play online with it for five years -- you just spent $250 for online alone. Yet, that's free on PC (so long as its not an MMO where subscriptions comes into play). If you bought 20 games on the Xbox 360 for full price, you spent $1,200 -- if you bought those same games on PC for full price, you spent $1,000. And you can buy PC games at dirt prices at times whereas only the ****ty console games will be that cheap. Amazing PC games like Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl can be bought for less than $5 at times.

I hate when people say online gaming is free on the PC. Apparently you people don't pay for your own internet bill.kittyloaf69

But you'll get more bang for your buck with a console in its initial release, and then 5 years later, PC will be comparable on the end of the consoles life, ( like it is now, and we've been hearing talk of new consoles soon). My PC from 2004 i've upgraded twice, and spent probably +800 in easily, i've spent $450 on 1 console, and $35 a year for online..savagetwinkie

So I confess I do not grasp how the console gives anything like "more bang for the buck." At $450, you're paying 60% as much for a game machine as you would for an actual personal computer, for heaven's sake. And there's no consensus at all it even plays games better; which it would absolutely have to do to be even in contention as worth it; since that's all it *can* do. I must be missing something. Maybe the couch/TV bit is more important than I would have thought.

[QUOTE="kittyloaf69"]I hate when people say online gaming is free on the PC. Apparently you people don't pay for your own internet bill.clone01

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]But you'll get more bang for your buck with a console in its initial release, and then 5 years later, PC will be comparable on the end of the consoles life, ( like it is now, and we've been hearing talk of new consoles soon). My PC from 2004 i've upgraded twice, and spent probably +800 in easily, i've spent $450 on 1 console, and $35 a year for online..sywi

So I confess I do not grasp how the console gives anything like "more bang for the buck." At $450, you're paying 60% as much for a game machine as you would for an actual personal computer, for heaven's sake. And there's no consensus at all it even plays games better; which it would absolutely have to do to be even in contention as worth it; since that's all it *can* do. I must be missing something. Maybe the couch/TV bit is more important than I would have thought.

your pc from 2008 might not be comparable to a new system coming out though, which is all i'm saying yes if performance isn't a major issue you can skim along the bottom with outdated hardware with a pc for a while, (if you had a hefty initial investment) and buy games dirt cheap 3 years after they've been released (which you can do on consoles too) . But you'll get more bang for your buck with a console in its initial release, and then 5 years later, PC will be comparable on the end of the consoles life, ( like it is now, and we've been hearing talk of new consoles soon). My PC from 2004 i've upgraded twice, and spent probably +800 in easily, i've spent $450 on 1 console, and $35 a year for online, I can buy games now dirt cheap that came out at the beginning of the gen, just like you can on the PC. But its only a $10 difference between new games, and with the used console games i'm usually gettting them for $40 while a pc game is still $50. So i'm buying cheaper NEW games on a console because i know where to find them, while my PC gets 4 year old left overs for $ 5 bucks here and there. BFBC2 is the first game i've bought in 4 years on a pc thats brand new just because i've finally upgraded my video card from a POS 4670 and wanted to play with my new 5770.savagetwinkie

My PC would still be superior -- I'm running 8GB of ram, SLI with 8800 GTS 512s (g92), a Q6600 and a 1TB HDD to boot! Anyways, my hardware can still play every game that comes out, and plays it wonderfully as well. Exceptions being Crysis and Crysis Warhead, can't run those games on highest settings and get a consistent 30FPS. I can't play games at 20-24FPS, it's just not fun.

Oh, you find those games at cheaper? That's nice since anyone can do the same thing for PC games. No matter how you slice it, mate, PC gaming is more expensive up-front, and less expensive in the long haul.

I have a gaming pc and ps3, and I play my ps3 more. Its just a matter of preference. Consoles have better games but the pc is the overall better platform imo.

I like my 360 more than my PCs for gaming.DonPerian

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]your pc from 2008 might not be comparable to a new system coming out though, which is all i'm saying yes if performance isn't a major issue you can skim along the bottom with outdated hardware with a pc for a while, (if you had a hefty initial investment) and buy games dirt cheap 3 years after they've been released (which you can do on consoles too) . But you'll get more bang for your buck with a console in its initial release, and then 5 years later, PC will be comparable on the end of the consoles life, ( like it is now, and we've been hearing talk of new consoles soon). My PC from 2004 i've upgraded twice, and spent probably +800 in easily, i've spent $450 on 1 console, and $35 a year for online, I can buy games now dirt cheap that came out at the beginning of the gen, just like you can on the PC. But its only a $10 difference between new games, and with the used console games i'm usually gettting them for $40 while a pc game is still $50. So i'm buying cheaper NEW games on a console because i know where to find them, while my PC gets 4 year old left overs for $ 5 bucks here and there. BFBC2 is the first game i've bought in 4 years on a pc thats brand new just because i've finally upgraded my video card from a POS 4670 and wanted to play with my new 5770.Stevo_the_gamer

My PC would still be superior -- I'm running 8GB of ram, SLI with 8800 GTS 512s (g92), a Q6600 and a 1TB HDD to boot! Anyways, my hardware can still play every game that comes out, and plays it wonderfully as well. Exceptions being Crysis and Crysis Warhead, can't run those games on highest settings and get a consistent 30FPS. I can't play games at 20-24FPS, it's just not fun.

Oh, you find those games at cheaper? That's nice since anyone can do the same thing for PC games. No matter how you slice it, mate, PC gaming is more expensive up-front, and less expensive in the long haul.

I like my 360 more than my PCs for gaming. It may be the best in terms of graphical capabilities, but I prefer a controller, my couch, and my 40inch 120hz LED TV. Oh, and all my friends are on Xbox LIVE..DonPerian

[QUOTE="DonPerian"]I like my 360 more than my PCs for gaming. It may be the best in terms of graphical capabilities, but I prefer a controller, my couch, and my 40inch 120hz LED TV. Oh, and all my friends are on Xbox LIVE..devious742

[QUOTE="DonPerian"]I like my 360 more than my PCs for gaming. It may be the best in terms of graphical capabilities, but I prefer a controller, my couch, and my 40inch 120hz LED TV. Oh, and all my friends are on Xbox LIVE..devious742

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] pc gaming doesn't have an easy setup for this, not alot of games support a controller natively, so if you had something like RE5 that didn't support the 360 controller for quicktime events, you know how much fun it would be if it just said press button 5 and your sitting there like 5??? orly? Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="devious742"]

[QUOTE="DonPerian"]I like my 360 more than my PCs for gaming. It may be the best in terms of graphical capabilities, but I prefer a controller, my couch, and my 40inch 120hz LED TV. Oh, and all my friends are on Xbox LIVE..lowe0

PS: note that I´m not saying that DonPerian was using the couch as excuse as it is a personal preference,as you stated. It´s just not worth mentioning because PC gamers can do the same.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] i'm not talking about the hooking up part, re read and think of how the controller works again pleaseVandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] i'm not talking about the hooking up part, re read and think of how the controller works again pleaselowe0

[QUOTE="devious742"]

[QUOTE="DonPerian"]I like my 360 more than my PCs for gaming. It may be the best in terms of graphical capabilities, but I prefer a controller, my couch, and my 40inch 120hz LED TV. Oh, and all my friends are on Xbox LIVE..lowe0

I personaly find PC to be the best, I like many genres and gametypes.... most of those I like are bassicaly non existant on consoles.

And it's always like that, people can whine on and on what's better...cheaper hardware or better graphics, couchs or chair, pads or mouse...but it's alll superficial in the end, what matters is games and whether one prefers a pc selection of them or console one. In the end nothing else is important

My problem with consoles still remains: since the great majority of those grownups who are in a position to have a hobby like gaming already have PCs, do they really need a toy "computer" too, just to play a few rather expensive games that are exclusive to that toy computer? I guess perhaps; if Darkside or whatever is really better than all the PC games put together I'll never have time to play because there are so many PC games, I can't even find time to try the demos for some seriously cool-sounding ones.

I still feel like I need an XBox about as much as I need a TV in my car, though; which is to say, not at all; except less than that -- I can't spare the distraction or the time, and the money, while not out of reach, still seems a waste. I'd rather keep another Haitian kid alive for a year with the $ it would cost to buy an XBox and half a dozen games for it. I could mess with my budget, but not gonna. Especially if i have to alt-tab out of CODMW2 to do it. :)

I'm just curious if there is anyone out there that still believes XBOX/PS3 > PC for gaming, I'm honestly just curious.

The "I like to game from my couch" argument doesn't count, strictly talking about quality of game experience (graphics/controls/games)

haberman13

Thread Ressurection!!!!

Happy Easter :)

Eh, I've said it before and I'll say it again: the PC isn't THE best in any way. It's all opinion. I, for one, prefer consoles for its exclusives, since they offer far more games in genres that I like. I will not respond to anyone that thinks my opinion is wrong, since I've quarreled enough on this thread already. It's my opinion that I like consoles more, and it's the TC's opinion that he likes the PC more. Stating that one is better than the other (on either side) is elitism at its finest (or worst, however you like to interpret it).

but i don't want to spend $750 to play games and type, its completly irrellavent, we are talking about gaming, and i can't game on my laptop, which is what i bought for school for $300, +$450 for the gaming console and its win. i don't need an expensive computer, if i keep them seperate, i'll NEVER really need to upgrade my computer for internet/word and some other stupid things. so i fi want ot game, spending $450 when the console first comes out, is better then spending $750 on a pc to keep up with it. I'll have my laptop so i don't need something to type on.savagetwinkie

Ah, of course, that's it. I am biased towards my own demogrphic and forget many gamers are still not of career age. Well, this current economy throws all bets off, but gods willing, in not too long college graduates will again have a good shot at real careers, and for that one inevitably needs a decent PC. Or almost inevitably -- I am being white-collar-centrish; have to remember not to do that; anyway, if lucky and aiming for an Information-Age-ish sort of career, in future you may well have to buy a new PC despite your current wishes; but that is no hard luck; mine cost a one-time $750 and returns me more than $50,000 per year ongoing, which is an ROI I will go for anytime. (Especially because I could deduct nearly the whole price from my taxes. And the Internet connection, too; as I do do much more work on my PC than gaming -- between the 2, I don't actually have the time to miss whatever great console games I am missing.) So in any case you may find you have a PC that you can game on despite yourself, and then you will see how well you can game on one, and will have a hard time avoiding trying it, as the cornucopia of games you can get for free starts with a bunch pre-installed.

Reflecting on all this, I would bet the PC-vs.-console debate breaks out along clear age lines. (W/ the usual exceptions, of course; I know at least one guy in his late 30s with an xbox and no PC; he's a construction worker and that doesn't require him to have a PC, though his boss has to.) However, PC gaming is not going to die; that is just silly. The installed base of consoles is a tiny percentage of that of PCs (even just counting gaming-capable PCS), and the latter is guaranteed to increase as steadily as global modernization. Of course, people will keep having children, too, so there will always be young people, and they may well choose consoles while they don't need a desktop. Or may choose both, for the couch option. Still, PCs are necessary now in a way consoles are not. I think gaming is obviously 'dead' or dying on neither and won't be; it certainly won't be on PCs.

Why is this thread bumped?

I just though of the debate-ending point which proves consoles are superior to PC gaming. Local multiplayer. I have friends who I interact with in real life.

ColdP1zza

... yep, no local MP here

FPS gaming on PC > FPS gaming on console

Yep, and it's subjective, but what's objective is that the PC has more AAAs and AAs than consoles.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Yep, and it's subjective, but what's objective is that the PC has more AAAs and AAs than consoles.

nitromuffin

So in any case you may find you have a PC that you can game on despite yourself, and then you will see how well you can game on one, and will have a hard time avoiding trying it, as the cornucopia of games you can get for free starts with a bunch pre-installed.

Reflecting on all this, I would bet the PC-vs.-console debate breaks out along clear age lines.

sywi

fair enough.

There' s always gonna be a war between the PC lovers and console fanboys. And war....war never changes.

mount and blade warband > anything on consoles