Knight's Guide to understanding WHY Pc is superior

there is the argument of cheaper games... but honestly... if you pre ordered red dead redemption... got the $20 amazon gift card, sold your pre order bonus code for $10 on ebay(heard these sold for 20 bucks).. beat the game inside of 1 month and traded it in for $35 through amazon... you just bought and beat a game and made money in the process and you played the game on the release date. Console games can be much cheaper because when you buy a console game, you are also buying the rights to resell it.

you can also wait a year and buy a console game used if you want... and once you beat it and are done.... you can probably sell it and not lose more than a couple bucks. I dont actively resell my games, but if you do... i think its actually quite a bit cheaper to buy them on consoles. I know people who actually made 10-20 bucks off red dead redemption.

markinthedark

I definately agree that frugal console gamers can beat out frugal PC gamers. Both have access to resources with lower prices, or extra bonuses.

I'm not a big reseller, unless I have to. I prefer to keep the collection going, and I just end up re-buying old games anyway :P

I use a $600 PC that suits me fine.

In fact I don't actually care if Crysis runs at 25-30fps, or if Metro was to do the same. Sure beats the hell out of a console where 95% of games run at 30fps.

I play all my games at 1920x1080 with AA, and DX11 features turned on as I use a 5770. I use G.Skill ram, I use an Asus motherboard, a Thermaltake PSU, a Western Digital HDD, and a Sapphire GPU, so I don't imagine I skimped out on name brand items.

I built it in October of last year, so I'm working on about 9 months ownership. I built it smart though as far as I'm concerned as it's got the capability of going up to 16gb of ram (I have 4gb now, and two extra slots), and a crossfire ready mobo. I'll probably get a 2nd 5770 if a game ever comes out that I can't play at a proper framerate.

I don't see why anyone (not pointing fingers, you know who you are), could come out and say that a $600 budget PC is "doing it wrong". I've never built a $1500 PC because I've never had the income to actually afford that all at once. Being a PC gamer is about enjoying the experiences of the platform, not about making sure your rig is constantly on the cutting edge of hardware technology. As far as I'm concerned I can play all games I want including new ones, I can enjoy the mods of any game I choose to mod, and I enjoy all the benefits of online gaming and online communities.

BLACKbusterCritic put it best: "PC Gaming is the best experience out there. It's what you make it, and if you can't make it what you want, that says a lot about you."

You can be the happiest PC gamer in the world by making a PC that suits your tastes. You are not "doing it wrong" by making a PC suitable to your needs whatever they may be. I needed a PC that could keep me in touch with my older brother, and my friends who moved away after high school. We don't play Crysis together. We play games like TF2, or Alien Breed: Impact, or League of Legends. My brother, and I love indie games, and buy those all the time. I've got friends who use their PC's for WoW. At this very moment I'm doing my first playthrough of Morrowind and absolutely loving it. Are you telling me that I'm doing it wrong? Because my 5770 doesn't max out Crysis at 1920x1080? Should I go buy an Xbox 360, and miss out on hundreds of PC games just because Crysis runs at 25-30 fps on my computer? I sure don't think so. Knowing what I know now if I was to go and get a 360 or PS3, and pay for online, and get absolutely no mods, and suffer with terrible online communities, and get a fraction of the library I do now, I would know that I had made the worst mistake in my gaming history.

It's not superior

PCs are only superior in performance, ability to mod, price and backwards compatibility with practicaly any old PC game (some extra programs here and there for the realy old games, but hey, thats the charm of PC gaming :D)

Consoles still have better local multiplayer, ease of use, high budget exclusives (console exclusives get the backing of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo so there's more of em and most of em are very good)

also i should say the optimal price to performance ratio for pcs is always changing.

sometimes a $500 pc hits the mark, sometimes a $700 will double the performance of a $500 pc. Sometimes a $1000 pc will offer double the performance of a $700 pc.

the performance per dollar spent is always changing on the pc... if you hit the max value during the $500 optimal PC performance era... grats.

But when the nvidia 8 series was released, the best value for performance for pcs was in the $1000+ range. We happen right now to be in a $500 value pc era... but that wasnt the case in 2005 or even 2006 or 2007.

the pc argument has would have had very little validity a few years ago.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

there is the argument of cheaper games... but honestly... if you pre ordered red dead redemption... got the $20 amazon gift card, sold your pre order bonus code for $10 on ebay(heard these sold for 20 bucks).. beat the game inside of 1 month and traded it in for $35 through amazon... you just bought and beat a game and made money in the process and you played the game on the release date. Console games can be much cheaper because when you buy a console game, you are also buying the rights to resell it.

you can also wait a year and buy a console game used if you want... and once you beat it and are done.... you can probably sell it and not lose more than a couple bucks. I dont actively resell my games, but if you do... i think its actually quite a bit cheaper to buy them on consoles. I know people who actually made 10-20 bucks off red dead redemption.

lundy86_4

I definately agree that frugal console gamers can beat out frugal PC gamers. Both have access to resources with lower prices, or extra bonuses.

I'm not a big reseller, unless I have to. I prefer to keep the collection going, and I just end up re-buying old games anyway :P

me neither. Im straight up lazy and i like looking at my giant stack of games and having options... and yes in the past i have sold my entire game system w/ all games only to wish i hadnt a few years down the line. But i do have more frugal friends that made profit by playing red dead redemption and rarely lose much money on games they beat in a month or two. But you can actually play and beat most console games without losing much if any money... and in some cases, making money. But yea it takes more effort... and if you are lazy, pc games are cheaper.

It's not superior

PCs are only superior in performance, ability to mod, price and backwards compatibility with practicaly any old PC game (some extra programs here and there for the realy old games, but hey, thats the charm of PC gaming :D)

Consoles still have better local multiplayer, ease of use, high budget exclusives (console exclusives get the backing of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo so there's more of em and most of em are very good)

chaplainDMK

SC2 says hi on most highest budget exclusive and so does the Star Wars MMO, and high budget doesn't mean good. There are plenty small budget indie devs that make awesome games.

And There are more higher rated exclusives on PC this gen than consoles.

PC has good multiplayer and the best online communities that last more than a decade on some games.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

It's not superior

PCs are only superior in performance, ability to mod, price and backwards compatibility with practicaly any old PC game (some extra programs here and there for the realy old games, but hey, thats the charm of PC gaming :D)

Consoles still have better local multiplayer, ease of use, high budget exclusives (console exclusives get the backing of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo so there's more of em and most of em are very good)

Hakkai007

SC2 says hi on most highest budget exclusive and so does the Star Wars MMO, and high budget doesn't mean good. There are plenty small budget indie devs that make awesome games.

And There are more higher rated exclusives on PC this gen than consoles.

PC has good multiplayer and the best online communities that last more than a decade on some games.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

It's not superior

PCs are only superior in performance, ability to mod, price and backwards compatibility with practicaly any old PC game (some extra programs here and there for the realy old games, but hey, thats the charm of PC gaming :D)

Consoles still have better local multiplayer, ease of use, high budget exclusives (console exclusives get the backing of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo so there's more of em and most of em are very good)

chaplainDMK

SC2 says hi on most highest budget exclusive and so does the Star Wars MMO, and high budget doesn't mean good. There are plenty small budget indie devs that make awesome games.

And There are more higher rated exclusives on PC this gen than consoles.

PC has good multiplayer and the best online communities that last more than a decade on some games.

So you basically agreed with just about everything I said....

Not sure why you argue big budgets when you just said after that the small budget ones are good too.

I said that consoles get them regulary. Yes i never said that any one is better. Personaly i find Company of Heroes the best game of this gen, but i still prefer many console exclusives over PC exclusives. The PC gets like 1 big budget exclusive per year, while the consoles get loads of them because they need them to compete with the other consoles. And i agree that low budget Indy are gems in their own right, but consoles still get them, but i agree that most of them are on the PC. chaplainDMK

It's overall true that blockbuster development has shiften towards consoles, but at the same time PC absolutely owns indie gaming, consoles are simply pathetic in this area compared to PC.

Same with independent smaller devs (so not indie, just those that aren't owned by a publisher). PCgaming is now enjoying a ressurgence of niche hardcore games made by smaller studios, while on consoles those types of games are almost exticnt nowadays and so are independent devs. That's the price you pay for regular stream of big budgeted mainstream games, it kills the niche.

So in the end it depends on what you want and what you prefer

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

SC2 says hi on most highest budget exclusive and so does the Star Wars MMO, and high budget doesn't mean good. There are plenty small budget indie devs that make awesome games.

And There are more higher rated exclusives on PC this gen than consoles.

PC has good multiplayer and the best online communities that last more than a decade on some games.

Hakkai007

So you basically agreed with just about everything I said....

Not sure why you argue big budgets when you just said after that the small budget ones are good too.

I said that consoles get more big budget exclusives... And there is a differance between a big budget game and a low budget game, just the production values can mean all the differance, not to mention real life licences (like in car racing games) and great voice acting etc. chaplainDMK

Yes, but the differences don't end there. Big budget brings forced mainstream appeal, casualization of gameplay and limitations of creative freedom.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] I said that consoles get them regulary. Yes i never said that any one is better. Personaly i find Company of Heroes the best game of this gen, but i still prefer many console exclusives over PC exclusives. The PC gets like 1 big budget exclusive per year, while the consoles get loads of them because they need them to compete with the other consoles. And i agree that low budget Indy are gems in their own right, but consoles still get them, but i agree that most of them are on the PC. AdrianWerner

It's overall true that blockbuster development has shiften towards PCs, but at the same time PC absolutely owns indie gaming, consoles are simply pathetic in this area compared to PC.

Same with independent smaller devs (so not indie, just those that aren't owned by a publisher). PCgaming is now enjoying a ressurgence of niche hardcore games made by smaller studios, while on consoles those types of games are almost exticnt nowadays and so are independent devs. That's the price you pay for regular stream of big budgeted mainstream games, it kills the niche.

So in the end it depends on what you want and what you prefer

is that why MS created a whole indie xbox live game market?

is that why MS created a whole indie xbox live game market?

markinthedark

Of course indie xbox live game market failed to live up to the hopes of MS and the result is that it's mostly limited to what's avaible for free on PC and few serious indie devs bother with it anymore.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]I said that consoles get more big budget exclusives... And there is a differance between a big budget game and a low budget game, just the production values can mean all the differance, not to mention real life licences (like in car racing games) and great voice acting etc. AdrianWerner

Yes, but the differences don't end there. Big budget brings forced mainstream appeal, casualization of gameplay and limitations of creative freedom.

Was able to upgrade the $600(gpu has $20 rebate so negates shipping cost) pc to include a phenom II x4 940 3.0ghz good pc that will last a while without any major upgrades besides the the gpu. So say in 2 years when higher amount of demanding dx11 games comeout you upgrade for $300-$400 to a real dx11 gpu that can handle it properly so even then its lower then price then someone who bought a $1500 pc and in the end performs better when it actually counts and theres a saturation of games that use the tech not just a select few. Of course they could upgrade as well but would further increase the price diffrence and so much for a pc that needs no upgrades for 4 years.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

is that why MS created a whole indie xbox live game market?

AdrianWerner

Of course indie xbox live game market failed to live up to the hopes of MS and the result is that it's mostly limited to what's avaible for free on PC and few serious indie devs bother with it anymore.

XBLA wasnt originally opened to indie devs... what you are describing is the natural order of business and greed. ButI dont think MS is anti indie, due to their attempt to give an outlet to small time devs. If they wanted to keep their platform only open to big devs, they would have done nothing... rather than implementing an indie dev program.

XBLA wasnt originally opened to indie devs... what you are describing is the natural order of business and greed. ButI dont think MS is anti indie, due to their attempt to give an outlet to small time devs. If they wanted to keep their platform only open to big devs, they would have done nothing... rather than implementing an indie dev program.

markinthedark

Is this a joke?

Then why is it that they ARE, in fact, doing nothing?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

XBLA wasnt originally opened to indie devs... what you are describing is the natural order of business and greed. ButI dont think MS is anti indie, due to their attempt to give an outlet to small time devs. If they wanted to keep their platform only open to big devs, they would have done nothing... rather than implementing an indie dev program.

Mograine

Is this a joke?

Then why is it that they ARE, in fact, doing nothing?

because the indie market failed for the most part. MS thought it was going to be more important than it actually ended up being... indie games ended up being a huge disappointment. They expected indie game developers to actually make good games... instead they released a whole bunch of controller massage programs using the rumble feature.

I think the fact that MS hasnt cancelled the huge failure of indie games is a testament to their support.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]I said that consoles get more big budget exclusives... And there is a differance between a big budget game and a low budget game, just the production values can mean all the differance, not to mention real life licences (like in car racing games) and great voice acting etc. chaplainDMK

Yes, but the differences don't end there. Big budget brings forced mainstream appeal, casualization of gameplay and limitations of creative freedom.

But yes, ther are exceptins, but at the same time it also goes both ways. THere are games made with by small teams that do have great production values, voice acting and stuff like that. But in both cases non-casualized big budgeters and small budgeters with great production values are exceptions from the general rule

XBLA wasnt originally opened to indie devs...

markinthedark

because the indie market failed for the most part. MS thought it was going to be more important than it actually ended up being... indie games ended up being a huge disappointment. They expected indie game developers to actually make good games... instead they released a whole bunch of controller massage programs using the rumble feature.

I think the fact that MS hasnt cancelled the huge failure of indie games is a testament to their support.

markinthedark

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

XBLA wasnt originally opened to indie devs...

AdrianWerner

Fact: No 500-600 dollar PC will last more than 6 months.

I'm sorry but anybody who says that buying a PC is cheap ALWAYS forgets that 90% of people who don't own a good PC need a mouse, keyboard, monitor, and probably speakers or headphones and an operating system. All that alone adds up to about $300 extra to any price. Also a 600 PC will beable to play all of the games, but very few of the new ones on high settings and NO new games on high or even medium settings.Wasdie

That's assuming you've never owned a PC before. Even not being a PC gamer before, I didn't need to worry about any of that stuff as I bought a new PC. I just bought a new keyboard (of a whopping 9 euros) because my old one malfunctioned. Nearly everyone has a PC these days. So when you're buying a new PC, the odds that you already have the items you listed are extremely high. That is like saying you need to buy a new TV when you're getting a console. And that would probably still be more expansive than buying all of the items you listed combined.

Fact:

I'm sorry but anybody who says that buying a PC is cheap ALWAYS forgets that 90% of people who don't own a good PC need a mouse, keyboard, monitor, and probably speakers or headphones and an operating system. All that alone adds up to about $300 extra to any price.

Wasdie

I'm sorry but anybody who says that buying a PC is cheap ALWAYS forgets that 90% of people who don't own a good PC need a monitor, and probably speakers or headphonesWasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]I'm sorry but anybody who says that buying a PC is cheap ALWAYS forgets that 90% of people who don't own a good PC need a monitor, and probably speakers or headphonesCentricStorm

Did you just call wasdie a console fanboy? :lol: Sandvichman

PC gaming is not about the best graphics and super hot rigs.

It is about great online play at 60 fps (I am happy to drop my settings to maintain a decent online FPS) and KBM. Gameplay in other words.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] console games play at the highest settings...because you cant even change the settings... PC games can be played in low, medium or max settings because it has those options... but, im gonna put an example: dragon age origins for the PS3 has no option to change the resolution above 1920p...if the PC version does, that doesnt means that the PS3 is not maxing the game...the PS3 IS maxing the PS3 version, just because another version can dobetter it doesnt means its not maxing the game...lundy86_4

So they are the highest settings because consoles are incapable of higher settings? Wow, ok then. Wouldn't highes settings be what the software is capable of, and not what the hardware is capable of running? That seems to make much more sense than what you state. Especially because when you said about a PC playing on low-med, and you said get a console because it'll play max -- that especially seems to imply that you are saying consoles run it better.

PC gaming is not about the best graphics and super hot rigs.

It is about great online play at 60 fps (I am happy to drop my settings to maintain a decent online FPS) and KBM. Gameplay in other words.

EddieBGreen

[QUOTE="EddieBGreen"]

PC gaming is not about the best graphics and super hot rigs.

It is about great online play at 60 fps (I am happy to drop my settings to maintain a decent online FPS) and KBM. Gameplay in other words.

lightleggy

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]Did you just call wasdie a console fanboy? :lol: CentricStorm

[QUOTE="EddieBGreen"]

PC gaming is not about the best graphics and super hot rigs.

It is about great online play at 60 fps (I am happy to drop my settings to maintain a decent online FPS) and KBM. Gameplay in other words.

lightleggy

the point about PC gaming is that the games look better than a console game...not that it plays at stable framerate with even low graphicslightleggy

the problem is some console fanboys are too attached to their consoles and can't realize how awesome it is to game on a PC abuabed

I still don't understand where you guys get off making this assumption; I was playing PC games back when people were talking about these new-fangled "first person shooters", yet PC gamers such as yourself continue to insist I'm incapable of understanding PC gaming.

[QUOTE="CentricStorm"][QUOTE="Sandvichman"]Did you just call wasdie a console fanboy? :lol: mystervj

[QUOTE="abuabed"]the problem is some console fanboys are too attached to their consoles and can't realize how awesome it is to game on a PC lowe0

I still don't understand where you guys get off making this assumption; I was playing PC games back when people were talking about these new-fangled "first person shooters", yet PC gamers such as yourself continue to insist I'm incapable of understanding PC gaming.

the problem is some console fanboys are too attached to their consoles and can't realize how awesome it is to game on a PC abuabed

[QUOTE="mystervj"][QUOTE="CentricStorm"] If he is a PC gamer but doesn't know that a PC can run on a TV then I will be worried.CentricStorm

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="abuabed"]the problem is some console fanboys are too attached to their consoles and can't realize how awesome it is to game on a PC abuabed

I still don't understand where you guys get off making this assumption; I was playing PC games back when people were talking about these new-fangled "first person shooters", yet PC gamers such as yourself continue to insist I'm incapable of understanding PC gaming.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="EddieBGreen"]

PC gaming is not about the best graphics and super hot rigs.

It is about great online play at 60 fps (I am happy to drop my settings to maintain a decent online FPS) and KBM. Gameplay in other words.

Iantheone

only a extremely low percentage of pc gamers play their games at a resolution above 1920x1080 and im not saying that console is better, an expensive pc will surely smash a console, my point is that in console, all games look the same and good...but on PC it will look different on many PC's even when the differences in settings are minimal. for example 3 of my friends are PC gamers, one of them has a badass PC that maxes crysis at 1600 with aa 8x and at constant 30 and above framerate. other guy has a medium-quality PC (and he is always bragging that its the best pc ever but he cant max any game) and other has a low-medium. I played re5 on the low medium, and the medium pc and it looked awful with almost differences on both of them...while the game in a console will automatically look 1000 times better than that crap...ofc if you can max the game (im also talking about res and aa here) then it will definitly look better, but then again good luck at throwing 1000 dollars on the riglightleggy

Whilst I agree, it is only a small percentage. The thing is, does that small percentage work out to be a high enough number of people for this situation not to be ignored. It's impossible to tell, and the only way to do so would be using Steam Hardware Surveys, which likely won't represent the final number due to the vas number of games with very opposite requirements (i.e. games like Alien Swarm that just released, doesn't exactly take a gaming rig).

All console games do not look the same however. A lot of them do, but a few have quite vast differences, so then which is running max? The one that runs it better? By that logic, we can then include PC and say the PC runs at max, and the consoles run at maybe a mix of Med-High.

If we're talking res and AA, you have to understand the lack of AA needed at higher resolutions. I need minimal AA at 1920x1200 because the aliasing without it is barely noticeable. AA eventually moves away from being a "necessity" and just hogs system resources for no reason.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]Did you just call wasdie a console fanboy? :lol: CentricStorm

Who buys a PC without a monitor if they don't already own a monitor? Hell even then, a lot of gamers would not want some old monitor, as their monitor for their PC. Also as I have said before, what if that monitor is attatched to a family PC that they cannot just take?

Every single argument that PC gaming is cheap in this entire thread has very little real world logic.

Everything I've based my arguments around has been from real life experiances. Nobody outside of these game boards would build a $600 PC just to play on their TV. People usually already own TVs and if they don't, I doubt they are going to say that I bought a TV just for gaming which we all know is not true. People who are building PCs usually need everything as they usually only have a laptop or some crappy hand-me-down PC from their family if they have their own at all.

[QUOTE="mystervj"] Wasdie said the same thing I did, there's entry barrier to PC gaming as a console owner, the same is also true the other way around. The point was that the trend of SW seems to assume anyone can just shell out $500 and start PC gaming, which just isn't true.Vandalvideo

Wasdie's 500 dollar argument was not directed at whether or not one could easily shell out 500 bucks and get into PC gaming. That is actually quite easily true. The argument was against the claim that, back in 2007, one could have built a rig for 500 bucks which beat the 360; which is false. It would have taken about 600 bucks or 700 bucks at the time.

Wasdie's argument circumvented the whole notation of price when he pushed that you simply could not build a 600 dollar computer. It then went into, saying that if you built a 600 dollar computer now you would have to upgrade in 6 months. He started to rebuttal some of his statements as he also stated you have to build a computer over the 1200 dollar price range. This number dropped over time in the argument to 800 dollars. When speaking with several members in that time frame, Wasdie was not arguing anymore with the TC's notion anymore.

It is fairely unlikely someone in 2007 could have built a 500 dollar computer that was faster then a console at that time. It is still possible though that frugal shopper PC's could have. MY pc's evolution in that timeframe did not push that argument while being under 500 dollars at the beginning. Even though my price has now gone up to 600 dollars total in the last years, Wasdie's argument is still void for me. (search May edition of System Wars Monthly for information page 9 on my computer evolution)

When we look at PC gaming, many misconceptions exist. Many members on the a front have been indoctrinated into a believe that the PC has no games, PC is dead, cost of a PC is positively over the 1200+ grand price tag. These are all concepts built on ignorance, fallacies, and bad understanding of the platform.

Now that many members get informed on the misconceptions, they are looking for other excuses such as the no AAAA argument or "no mainstream games. When gs editors state why there is not a AAAA, many members refuse to believe it or just continue there way over and over. The next inclination of "no mainstream games" is just another fallacy built on popular opinion with no proof to it being correct. Even lately, statements that PC gamers don't play through there TV is also incorrect. I've explained several times that I have my living rooms 37 in speptre hdtv hooked to my computer with my 19 inch monitor hannsg. Do I game on he living room tv? yes. I usually play all my racing games or games I want to use my ps2 controller connected to my pc on that screen. At anytime though, I can simply go to the nvidia contol panel and go back to my 19 inch monitor and sit at my computer desk and play. That is just me though. Offcourse it doesn'tr incompass all pc gamers but statements saying "pc gamers don't game on their hdtv's or don't sit on the couch to play games or are forced to always use Keyboard and mouse" is just horrible flame banter.