Poll: Console gamers why do you prefer console gaming over PC gaming?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
ian give it rest the PS3 was still $500 in 2007, also depending on location and supply the PS3's were as much as $1000. and in 2007 I built a Pc for $750 and it walked all over both consoles which is a much better price to performance ratio... so only spend 25% more and get 3x the ability hmm thats a no brainer. That Pc still being used to this day playing modern games much better then either console version. Your arguments only work if someone had to build the top of the line Pc from scratch in 2006. Also you didnt need a top end Pc to beat the PS3 graphically, The PS3 only has 256mb system memory and 256mb of video memory which is only 25gb/s and the its Graphics chipset is a gimped Geforce 7800 which has more in common with a 7600 then 7800. From 2005 all the way into 2007(when multicore support started to take off) you could use a Single core cpu, have 1gb of memory, a Geforce 6 or 7 and match and or surpass what the console's did with multiplatform games. And a normal Geforce 7800GTX has 2x the video memory and 2x the memory bandwidth. In some countries console gaming is more expensive then Pc gaming. 04dcarraher
Which ian are you talking to :P
Yeah, up until 2009 I was using a PC from 2005 (Maybe 2004, dont remember) and an 8600gt which cost $200 IIRC which was overpriced anyway. Then just got a new PC and have saved tons of money on software.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Iantheone
Which ian are you talking to :P
Yeah, up until 2009 I was using a PC from 2005 (Maybe 2004, dont remember) and an 8600gt which cost $200 IIRC which was overpriced anyway. Then just got a new PC and have saved tons of money on software.
:lol: the other one Your 8600GT was slower then a normal 7800GTX , a the 8600GT is able to play modern games better then either console. Such as RE5, Mass Effect 1 and 2, and a bunch of other games that are made correctly. You figure you buy 10 new consoles at $60 a piece thats $600, while the Pc version is $50 or lower $500 or less is spent , then what if you have a 360 and Live is a needed to play online if you payed for live from 2005 to 2011 that is 6 years $50 a pop, that's $300 just to a feature that Pc has for free. Then if you bought a 360 in 2005/2006 its a 98% sure chance you have had it replaced at least once, some people have had to send in their 360's 5+ times and after the 3 year RRoD and E74 error warranty wears off you have to spend more money on a new 360 and or MS wont cover any other issue. Everyone I know that owns a 360 has been through at least three of them and a few have been through 4 and 5 units. PC gaming can be cheaper then console gaming.[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] 04dcarraher
Which ian are you talking to :P
Yeah, up until 2009 I was using a PC from 2005 (Maybe 2004, dont remember) and an 8600gt which cost $200 IIRC which was overpriced anyway. Then just got a new PC and have saved tons of money on software.
:lol: the other one Your 8600GT was slower then a normal 7800GTX , a the 8600GT is able to play modern games better then either console. Such as RE5, Mass Effect 1 and 2, and a bunch of other games that are made correctly. You figure you buy 10 new consoles at $60 a piece thats $600, while the Pc version is $50 or lower $500 or less is spent , then what if you have a 360 and Live is a needed to play online if you payed for live from 2005 to 2011 that is 6 years $50 a pop, that's $300 just to a feature that Pc has for free. Then if you bought a 360 in 2005/2006 its a 98% sure chance you have had it replaced at least once, some people have had to send in their 360's 5+ times and after the 3 year RRoD and E74 error warranty wears off you have to spend more money on a new 360 and or MS wont cover any other issue. Everyone I know that owns a 360 has been through at least three of them and a few have been through 4 and 5 units. PC gaming can be cheaper then console gaming. Pretty much. My 8600 was still going strongly up until I mounted it on my wall when my brother who inherited it upgraded. I like to think of the money saved from consoles is just upgrade money, so with biyearly upgrades they come out pretty even.
How is where you sit an indication of what kind of experience you get? I game at my desk, yes, but I dont have a office chair, I have a freaking lazy boy with a board across the armrests so I can use the M&K. Before you go on about my board, its wrapped in a blanket and I use a mouse pad. Very comfortable. IantheoneThe main benefit always cited around here is better graphics. If you're at a desk, 12-24 inches from a screen, super high resolution looks great. But if you are, let's say 8-10 feet from a 40-50" HDTV, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between 720 and 1080p, much less anything higher. Thus for people who prefer sitting on the couch playing with a controller on the big screen, the higher res argument is moot. Herms always refute the couch+controller+tv argument by saying "you can hook up your pc to a controller and tv!" but if the graphics don't look significantly better from that distance anyway, your pc is no better than a console... it just costs 2-3 times as much. In order to get the full benefit of a good pc's capabilities, you need to sit at a desk up close... which is an inferior experience, IMO.
ian give it rest the PS3 was still $500 in 2007, also depending on location and supply the PS3's were as much as $1000. and in 2007 I built a Pc for $750 and it walked all over both consoles which is a much better price to performance ratio... so only spend 25% more and get 3x the ability hmm thats a no brainer. That Pc still being used to this day playing modern games much better then either console version. Your arguments only work if someone had to build the top of the line Pc from scratch in 2006. Also you didnt need a top end Pc to beat the PS3 graphically, The PS3 only has 256mb system memory and 256mb of video memory which is only 25gb/s and the its Graphics chipset is a gimped Geforce 7800 which has more in common with a 7600 then 7800. From 2005 all the way into 2007(when multicore support started to take off) you could use a Single core cpu, have 1gb of memory, a Geforce 6 or 7 and match and or surpass what the console's did with multiplatform games. And a normal Geforce 7800GTX has 2x the video memory and 2x the memory bandwidth. In some countries console gaming is more expensive then Pc gaming. 04dcarraherBrand new PS3's started at $500 at launch in 2006, and were never sold at retail for $1000 (USD). If someone paid that much, it's because they were a sucker. What, can't find a PS3 in stores because you waited till the week before Christmas? Just wait till January. It's a few weeks. It won't kill you.
The reason I keep looking at 2006 prices for pcs and using high end machines that still meet the system reqs of games coming out in 2011, is because that's when the last consoles came out. If a new Xbox comes out in 2013, that means a 360 owner who bought his console in 2005 could go 8 years without having to upgrade and know his machine will play every single game released on the Xbox platform only having spent that initial $450. Well, I guess technically, he'd have had to buy a Kinect to play EVERY 360 game, and spend $400ish on Live, if he wanted online the whole time (thus why I went PS3 instead)... Ignoring Live, $600 on hardware for 8 years of meeting the System Reqs to play every game without worrying about whether he should buy a new card to get a little better graphics or anything like that.
Similarly, let's say PS4 comes out in 2014ish. $500-600 in 2006 to play every PS game for the next 8 years... including PS2 games, since we're talking about buying in 2006 (there were still PS2 games being released that didn't make it to next gen systems, or only to 360, for the first few years).
By comparison, you couldn't build a pc at all in 2005 that will still play all games released on the pc platform, much less play them well, without additional hardware investments since. And you couldn't build one in 2006 without spending a minimum of 2-3 times the cost of consoles. And even if you did that, you'd have had to replace your OS (which isn't cheap to do, legally...) at least once. I dunno, maybe more... any games with a hard requirement of Win7 yet? And hell, Win 8 will be here before 360/PS4.
Scalable hardware is nice... it can be an advantage. If you want better performance, you can upgrade, but you don't always have to just because the newest hardware is out. That's cool.... but it's also a disadvantage. Periodically, you do HAVE to upgrade, or lose the ability to play the newest and best games. Standard hardware, on the other hand, has the advantage of not having to worry about that. You buy a console at the start of the gen, you don't have to worry about it for 5+ years. In this gen, looks like it's going to wind up being 8+. You buy a PC at the start of the gen... and who knows. It might be only a year or two before a significant advancement comes along that becomes a requirement in new games. And further, while a pc may be hugely more powerful on paper, standard hardware allows for the code to be much more optimized. In practice, the differences are not nearly as vast as Herms like to claim, especially at the distance most console gamers sit from the screen.
You can't have the cake and eat it too. You wanna claim all those pc games on the spreadsheet, and better graphics/performance to boot? You have to accept much higher cost. You want to claim "not much more than consoles," you gotta accept that you can't play all the games on your platform, and even those you can, you have to sacrifice either performance or graphics to do it.
ian, everything on consoles is a sacrifice anymore. Again the PS3 versions in 2006 was the $500 and $600 (different hdd space) and in south America PS3 were over $800. Your argument is flawed... Pc =progression which is why requirements go up because everything gets better and standards go up. Consoles are static and you will be stuck with 2005 based abilities and going 5 years or more without any real improvements besides art direction isnt anything to proud of. Funny thing is that you keep on spewing the same thing over and over About costs and a 2006 Pc is this and cant do that.... ITS WRONG.
You can look at any well made Multiplat game and they only require a Geforce 6 or 7 and recommend a Geforce 7 or 8. Its funny that dev's are actually improving the Pc version's of multiplatform games because the ability is there. You can look at Any Unreal 3 based game only needing a geforce 7 to run on settings equal or better then consoles,such as Batman AA only requiring a dual core, and Geforce 7900 to run better and run at higher resolution then console versions You can look at The Call of Duty's those requirements havent really changed since 2005. You can look at RE5, and the list keeps on going. the only reason requirements go up is because the games are more demanding and have alot more features that are not cut out or the console cant run. You can look at Metro 2033 The Pc version lowest texture setting the resolution is 2.33 MPIX while the console versions only could do 1.0 MPIX there is a reason for higher requirements. You can take a Pc from 2007 that has a dual core and a Geforce 8 and compare it to any multiplat game like say CoD 4, consoles run way below HD resolutions(1024x600), use a slew of graphical settings, no AA little AF and is not even 60 fps stable. while that Pc runs Cod 4 at all high settings with 4x AA and 16x AF at 1680x1050 at gets well above 100 fps...
Problem is that the next batch of consoles will not be powerhouses nor will be breaking records compared to any high ended Pc from 2010/2011. Sony an MS didnt make a dime on their consoles until three years after the fact because of their mistakes and major R&D costs and will not be doing the same thing. Consoles since 2007 have been holding back gaming in general because of the shift to multiplatform gaming. People that got a high ended Pc from 2006 or even 2007 can still play 90% of games just fine and at better settings then consoles. Its only been in the last year or so where progression has been done with Pc gaming that it has broken out the stale and static hardware limits because Dev's cant do what they want to do on consoles and are focusing on Pc.
Want to take about costs eh? Simple fact that Pc is used more then just gaming voids the price argument and can do an infinte amount of things that consoles are not designed to do. you have include that liitle thing when you compare Pc costs to Consoles. Its like comparing a plain jane Cell phone to a iphone.
[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]
[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]If there are clouds, you know it is going to rain. If you have a dog, you know it has spots. If you have a personal computer, you know it runs on Mac OSX. If you are driving a car, you know you are going to get arrested. If you are an American, you live in Wyoming. If you have a pc from 2006, you know it is more powerful than console.
All of those sentences have something in common. Can you figure out what it is?
ianuilliam
It is a common sense not to include office-pc's or low-end pc's, and also I never said every pc.
I get it, you don't like the idea that a very old pc outperform the consoles, that is ok with me, but don't try call me liar or even worse autism(like you did in your post above).
I didn't say every cloud, every dog, every personal computer, every car, every American, or every pc from 2006 in the post above, so that means all of those sentences are true, right? Even though there can be clouds with no rain, many dogs have no spots, most personal computers run on Windows, people drive cars all the time without getting arrested, way more Americans do not live in Wyoming than do, and the vast majority of PCs, even those bought for gaming, are not more powerful than consoles (at least not in a way that translates to new games running better... or at all).I have no problem accepting that a 2006 pc that cost at least $1200, and likely a good deal more, outperforms a console from 2006 that cost $400-600. Why would I have a problem with that? The only thing I said was a lie was your initial statement "if you have a pc from 2006, you already know it plays any games better than consoles." I have a pc from 2006. It doesn't play games better than consoles. Ergo, the statement was not true. Also, I never called you autistic, or even implied that you might be. At this point, despite my usual tendency to continue an argument as long as the other party keeps going, I really think I just need to walk away on this one.
I think it is bothers you that a PC from 2006 play games better than console, because it makes consoles not a good investment because pc's are more cost effective and also you get better gaming experience (better graphics, better gameplay, etc). So that is why you try to prove my statement wrong, despite the fact that i have prove to you many times that my statement is true.
Running games on consoles is hassle-free and you don't have to worry about things like DRM and whether your system meets the game's requirements or so. Just put the disc in and start playing.mstrchf12This is false, Almost all PS3 games you have to install onto the harddrive and to get best results the the 360 you have to install some games, Almost all multiplayer based game have patches and updates Console gaming isnt that easy any more and we have seen some 360 games you have to get up and put in the next disc to continue playing. Consoles are a form of DRM believe it or not , and if you are a Pc gamer you dont have to worry about requirements because they are on top(knowing) of what you need to run a game.
I didn't say every cloud, every dog, every personal computer, every car, every American, or every pc from 2006 in the post above, so that means all of those sentences are true, right? Even though there can be clouds with no rain, many dogs have no spots, most personal computers run on Windows, people drive cars all the time without getting arrested, way more Americans do not live in Wyoming than do, and the vast majority of PCs, even those bought for gaming, are not more powerful than consoles (at least not in a way that translates to new games running better... or at all).[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]
It is a common sense not to include office-pc's or low-end pc's, and also I never said every pc.
I get it, you don't like the idea that a very old pc outperform the consoles, that is ok with me, but don't try call me liar or even worse autism(like you did in your post above).
MK-Professor
I have no problem accepting that a 2006 pc that cost at least $1200, and likely a good deal more, outperforms a console from 2006 that cost $400-600. Why would I have a problem with that? The only thing I said was a lie was your initial statement "if you have a pc from 2006, you already know it plays any games better than consoles." I have a pc from 2006. It doesn't play games better than consoles. Ergo, the statement was not true. Also, I never called you autistic, or even implied that you might be. At this point, despite my usual tendency to continue an argument as long as the other party keeps going, I really think I just need to walk away on this one.
I think it is bothers you that a PC from 2006 play games better than console, because it makes consoles not a good investment because pc's are more cost effective and also you get better gaming experience (better graphics, better gameplay, etc). So that is why you try to prove my statement wrong, despite the fact that i have prove to you many times that my statement is true.
I'm going to just go ahead and assume that either English isn't your native language, or you are pretty young and still in school. I try not to be too judgemental about such things, so I'll just chalk our whole argument up to a misunderstanding about what it was I was trying to explain to you. But just for good measure, I'll repeat once again: It doesn't bother me at all that a pc from 2006 might be able to run games on higher settings than a console. How does it make a console a bad investment or make pcs more cost effective? Its the opposite, if anything. In order to have a 2006 pc that still plays all the new games, much less plays them at or above console performance levels, you'd have had to spent way more money... making the pc less cost effective, as far as gaming hardware costs. And, yeah... I'm not going to try to explain again why you have not actually proven your statement that I refuted to be true. If you haven't understood what I was saying in my other posts on the matter, one more is unlikely to yield any better results.
I prefer consoles over PC gaming because consoles are more practical. You don't have to worry about upgrading technology. Also, I don't do much in the way of PCs these days, as one of my laptops is a MacBook Pro and one is a Toshiba Satellite with Ubuntu Linux.
I find it troubling that you don't have the option "the games". It's by and large the biggest reason for me preferring consoles; I just like their library a lot more.
[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]
[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]I didn't say every cloud, every dog, every personal computer, every car, every American, or every pc from 2006 in the post above, so that means all of those sentences are true, right? Even though there can be clouds with no rain, many dogs have no spots, most personal computers run on Windows, people drive cars all the time without getting arrested, way more Americans do not live in Wyoming than do, and the vast majority of PCs, even those bought for gaming, are not more powerful than consoles (at least not in a way that translates to new games running better... or at all).
I have no problem accepting that a 2006 pc that cost at least $1200, and likely a good deal more, outperforms a console from 2006 that cost $400-600. Why would I have a problem with that? The only thing I said was a lie was your initial statement "if you have a pc from 2006, you already know it plays any games better than consoles." I have a pc from 2006. It doesn't play games better than consoles. Ergo, the statement was not true. Also, I never called you autistic, or even implied that you might be. At this point, despite my usual tendency to continue an argument as long as the other party keeps going, I really think I just need to walk away on this one.
ianuilliam
I think it is bothers you that a PC from 2006 play games better than console, because it makes consoles not a good investment because pc's are more cost effective and also you get better gaming experience (better graphics, better gameplay, etc). So that is why you try to prove my statement wrong, despite the fact that i have prove to you many times that my statement is true.
I'm going to just go ahead and assume that either English isn't your native language, or you are pretty young and still in school. I try not to be too judgemental about such things, so I'll just chalk our whole argument up to a misunderstanding about what it was I was trying to explain to you. But just for good measure, I'll repeat once again: It doesn't bother me at all that a pc from 2006 might be able to run games on higher settings than a console. How does it make a console a bad investment or make pcs more cost effective? Its the opposite, if anything. In order to have a 2006 pc that still plays all the new games, much less plays them at or above console performance levels, you'd have had to spent way more money... making the pc less cost effective, as far as gaming hardware costs. And, yeah... I'm not going to try to explain again why you have not actually proven your statement that I refuted to be true. If you haven't understood what I was saying in my other posts on the matter, one more is unlikely to yield any better results.How many times i have to say it that i didn't say every pc on my statement?
I will just go ahead and assume that it defiantly bothers you that an pc from 2006 play games better than consoles, and you try to hide with "damage control". Also PC is more cost effective because, you get one system that play games better than any other system and also you can use it for everything else, on the other hand consoles are doing one thing playing games worse than pc's. So if you are a console gamer you need a pc to do the other things.
a PC(from 2006) for $1400, and you have a system that still play games better than consoles and also do other stuff as well.
a consoles(from 2006) for $600 + chep pc(from 2006) for $500 = $1100 (+ games are generally more expensive, that means in 5 years you will end up spending more)
Nintendo.
Good one. Not all gaming companies are on board with PC gaming, so that in itself is a good enough reason to console game. I don't think nothing is wrong with PC gaming, I just get a little tired of PC gamers preaching hardware superiority, or how console games get the watered down version of the multi-platform game.I know all PC gamers aren't like that, but it seems like a good percentage will try to convince you that console gaming is a waste of time, and that PC gaming is the holy grail of gaming.Nintendo.
Vickman178
Upgrading is a good thing.I prefer consoles over PC gaming because consoles are more practical. You don't have to worry about upgrading technology. Also, I don't do much in the way of PCs these days, as one of my laptops is a MacBook Pro and one is a Toshiba Satellite with Ubuntu Linux.
MathMattS
Why is there a thread about this every week? Are people really that insecure that there are other gamers who don't play on the same platform as them?
Dark Souls...rest my case
zekere
Indeed, my best game of all time right now
And i get to play both this and Witcher 2 (and Skyrim+exclusive DLC, MAss Effect 3 Kinect, Fable 2-3-Journey etc) on my xbox 360 too
[QUOTE="zekere"]
Dark Souls...rest my case
loosingENDS
Indeed, my best game of all time right now
And i get to play both this and Witcher 2 (and Skyrim+exclusive DLC, MAss Effect 3 Kinect, Fable 2-3-Journey etc) on my xbox 360 too
Its a shame you dont have a single exclusive in that list apart from Ablefa 2? How many years old is that one now?
most console gamers are kids who can't afford to purchase a PC and have their parents purchase things for them. Usually the demographic is the 7-17 age group. Consoles let people who don't have much $$ to enjoy gaming. However when you think about it, the cost of console games themselves are usually $70 while for PC gaming the cost per game are much more flexible.
Its not even about funds or what I can afford, for me I just think that a PC is for work and browsing and a console is designated for gaming. Why would I want to worry about specs and cards ? thats just an inconvenience, a console comes ready to go from launch to whenever it dies (possibly never).most console gamers are kids who can't afford to purchase a PC and have their parents purchase things for them. Usually the demographic is the 7-17 age group. Consoles let people who don't have much $$ to enjoy gaming. However when you think about it, the cost of console games themselves are usually $70 while for PC gaming the cost per game are much more flexible.
blaznwiipspman1
[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]Its not even about funds or what I can afford, for me I just think that a PC is for work and browsing and a console is designated for gaming. Why would I want to worry about specs and cards ? thats just an inconvenience, a console comes ready to go from launch to whenever it dies (possibly never).most console gamers are kids who can't afford to purchase a PC and have their parents purchase things for them. Usually the demographic is the 7-17 age group. Consoles let people who don't have much $$ to enjoy gaming. However when you think about it, the cost of console games themselves are usually $70 while for PC gaming the cost per game are much more flexible.
rasengan2552
exactly, consoles are for people who just want to enjoy playing the game. PC is for people who also want to enjoy playing the game but at the same time have the absolute BEST experience available in the world technologically. PC gamers are also more knowledgeable about how a system works. I personally won't be getting anymore consoles after this gen and just stick with my PC and maybe the next nintendo console.
It's easier.
Its not even about funds or what I can afford, for me I just think that a PC is for work and browsing and a console is designated for gaming. Why would I want to worry about specs and cards ? thats just an inconvenience, a console comes ready to go from launch to whenever it dies (possibly never).[QUOTE="rasengan2552"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]
most console gamers are kids who can't afford to purchase a PC and have their parents purchase things for them. Usually the demographic is the 7-17 age group. Consoles let people who don't have much $$ to enjoy gaming. However when you think about it, the cost of console games themselves are usually $70 while for PC gaming the cost per game are much more flexible.
blaznwiipspman1
exactly, consoles are for people who just want to enjoy playing the game. PC is for people who also want to enjoy playing the game but at the same time have the absolute BEST experience available in the world technologically. PC gamers are also more knowledgeable about how a system works. I personally won't be getting anymore consoles after this gen and just stick with my PC and maybe the next nintendo console.
The majority of PC gamers aren't playing on ultra high settings. In fact the majority are playing WOW and The Sims on older PCs. The idea that every PC gamer is running the latest games on the highest settings is just silly.[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"][QUOTE="rasengan2552"] Its not even about funds or what I can afford, for me I just think that a PC is for work and browsing and a console is designated for gaming. Why would I want to worry about specs and cards ? thats just an inconvenience, a console comes ready to go from launch to whenever it dies (possibly never).locopatho
exactly, consoles are for people who just want to enjoy playing the game. PC is for people who also want to enjoy playing the game but at the same time have the absolute BEST experience available in the world technologically. PC gamers are also more knowledgeable about how a system works. I personally won't be getting anymore consoles after this gen and just stick with my PC and maybe the next nintendo console.
The majority of PC gamers aren't playing on ultra high settings. In fact the majority are playing WOW and The Sims on older PCs. The idea that every PC gamer is running the latest games on the highest settings is just silly.Indeed, developers dont take full advantage of new video cards not just because of consoles, but because 90% of gaming PCs have even older than xbox 360 hardware
Next gen it will be old PCs that will hold back games, not the new consoles
Also consoles are mainly for people with jobs that can afford countless hours in installing games, tweaking settings, installing new drivers, patches, OSes and trying to figure out the keyboard keys for each game
Indeed, developers dont take full advantage of new video cards not just because of consoles, but because 90% of gaming PCs have even older than xbox 360 hardware
Next gen it will be old PCs that will hold back games, not the new consoles
loosingENDS
Considering there are an estimated 1 billion+ PC's in the world, even with your arbitrary 90% number, that's still over 100 million with the potential to play at higher than console settings. That's a pretty huge market.
Multiplat development has occurred across all platforms, and as such, less effort is put into many PC multiplats. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just indicative of a changing market.
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
Indeed, developers dont take full advantage of new video cards not just because of consoles, but because 90% of gaming PCs have even older than xbox 360 hardware
Next gen it will be old PCs that will hold back games, not the new consoles
lundy86_4
Considering there are an estimated 1 billion+ PC's in the world, even with your arbitrary 90% number, that's still over 100 million with the potential to play at higher than console settings. That's a pretty huge market.
Multiplat development has occurred across all platforms, and as such, less effort is put into many PC multiplats. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just indicative of a changing market.
I said gaming PC's with old hardware, like 2000$ PCs bought a year before xbox 360, not PCs in general, that would be like 1/100 of all PCs in the world since most people use them for work
Also consoles are mainly for people with jobs that cant afford countless hours in installing games, tweaking settings, installing new drivers, patches, OSes and trying to figure out the keyboard keys for each game
I said gaming PC's with old hardware, like 2000$ PCs bought a year before xbox 360, not PCs in general, that would be like 1/100 of all PCs in the world since most people use them for work
Also consoles are mainly for people with jobs that can afford countless hours in installing games, tweaking settings, installing new drivers, patches, OSes and trying to figure out the keyboard keys for each game
loosingENDS
Good point, well in that case, what's the point in your arbitrary number? Who says that people have not upgraded?
Consoles are a large part of the industry, but I don't feel your point accurately cuts it. I have a job and am in full-time education, and yet gaming on PC is not a hassle.
- Installing games typically takes 10-15 mins (something PS3 games have started to dom with mandatory installs).
- Tweaking settings is mostly automatic nowadays, apart from people who do want to tweak for best performance/IQ.
- Installing new drivers can be a pain, but you can run on older drivers for a number of months with little hassle (unless they directly impact performance in a game).
- Patches can be largely automatic nowadays, especially with services like Steam.
- :? You install a new OS possibly once every 4-5 years or even more for many people (XP is still widely popular). That's about as long as a consoles lifecycle.
- Learning new controls takes a whole of 5 minutes, and it's the same with every games (consoles included). Hell, most games have tutorials :?
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
Good point, well in that case, what's the point in your arbitrary number? Who says that people have not upgraded?
Consoles are a large part of the industry, but I don't feel your point accurately cuts it. I have a job and am in full-time education, and yet gaming on PC is not a hassle.
- Installing games typically takes 10-15 mins (something PS3 games have started to dom with mandatory installs).
- Tweaking settings is mostly automatic nowadays, apart from people who do want to tweak for best performance/IQ.
- Installing new drivers can be a pain, but you can run on older drivers for a number of months with little hassle (unless they directly impact performance in a game).
- Patches can be largely automatic nowadays, especially with services like Steam.
- :? You install a new OS possibly once every 4-5 years or even more for many people (XP is still widely popular). That's about as long as a consoles lifecycle.
- Learning new controls takes a whole of 5 minutes, and it's the same with every games (consoles included). Hell, most games have tutorials :?
lundy86_4
It is still far easier on consoles, plus i want to use my PC only for work and not in the living room for gaming
But that is a matter of preference of course
I still think that games dont go full potential because developers make them for older PCs too, it is not just consoles holding them back
And yet you can do that for PC...[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]it's comfy to lay on the couch and play a console game vs. hunched over a pc screen playing a pc game. but it depends on the game. i'll never play a fps on a console.. i hate those ----in thumb sticks...mitu123
Yes, if you buy a separate gaming PC to have in the living room only for gaming
It is an extremely expensive sport though and will not fit well in the living room, plus not all PC games have pad controls and i definatly cant use a keyboard/mouse in a dark living room and sofa
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
I said gaming PC's with old hardware, like 2000$ PCs bought a year before xbox 360, not PCs in general, that would be like 1/100 of all PCs in the world since most people use them for work
Also consoles are mainly for people with jobs that can afford countless hours in installing games, tweaking settings, installing new drivers, patches, OSes and trying to figure out the keyboard keys for each game
loosingENDS
Good point, well in that case, what's the point in your arbitrary number? Who says that people have not upgraded?
Consoles are a large part of the industry, but I don't feel your point accurately cuts it. I have a job and am in full-time education, and yet gaming on PC is not a hassle.
- Installing games typically takes 10-15 mins (something PS3 games have started to dom with mandatory installs).
- Tweaking settings is mostly automatic nowadays, apart from people who do want to tweak for best performance/IQ.
- Installing new drivers can be a pain, but you can run on older drivers for a number of months with little hassle (unless they directly impact performance in a game).
- Patches can be largely automatic nowadays, especially with services like Steam.
- :? You install a new OS possibly once every 4-5 years or even more for many people (XP is still widely popular). That's about as long as a consoles lifecycle.
- Learning new controls takes a whole of 5 minutes, and it's the same with every games (consoles included). Hell, most games have tutorials :?
I still think that games dont go full potential because developers make them for older PCs too, it is not just consoles holding them back
Yes, but some ways it is. Crysis 1 wasn't held back in 2007, but when Crysis 2 did at launch, look at what happened.[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
Good point, well in that case, what's the point in your arbitrary number? Who says that people have not upgraded?
Consoles are a large part of the industry, but I don't feel your point accurately cuts it. I have a job and am in full-time education, and yet gaming on PC is not a hassle.
- Installing games typically takes 10-15 mins (something PS3 games have started to dom with mandatory installs).
- Tweaking settings is mostly automatic nowadays, apart from people who do want to tweak for best performance/IQ.
- Installing new drivers can be a pain, but you can run on older drivers for a number of months with little hassle (unless they directly impact performance in a game).
- Patches can be largely automatic nowadays, especially with services like Steam.
- :? You install a new OS possibly once every 4-5 years or even more for many people (XP is still widely popular). That's about as long as a consoles lifecycle.
- Learning new controls takes a whole of 5 minutes, and it's the same with every games (consoles included). Hell, most games have tutorials :?
mitu123
I still think that games dont go full potential because developers make them for older PCs too, it is not just consoles holding them back
Yes, but some ways it is. Crysis 1 wasn't held back in 2007, but when Crysis 2 did at launch, look at what happened.But Crysis 1 is on consoles and with the new engine
It is still far easier on consoles, plus i want to use my PC only for work and not in the living room for gaming
But that is a matter of preference of course
I still think that games dont go full potential because developers make them for older PCs too, it is not just consoles holding them back.
loosingENDS
Well nobody said it wasn't easier. After all, that's largely the point of a console.
There are a wide variety of factors as to why developers don't gear toward higher-end PCs. It certainly isn't solely down to consoles.
Yes, but some ways it is. Crysis 1 wasn't held back in 2007, but when Crysis 2 did at launch, look at what happened.[QUOTE="mitu123"]
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
I still think that games dont go full potential because developers make them for older PCs too, it is not just consoles holding them back
loosingENDS
But Crysis 1 is on consoles and with the new engine
And I'm saying the PC version of Crysis 1 wasn't held back and it allowed to push graphics in every area. When the only thing console versions can compete is with lighting while being worse in other graphical features and missing a level and having framerate problems you know consoles could only handle the game while being butchered.[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
It is still far easier on consoles, plus i want to use my PC only for work and not in the living room for gaming
But that is a matter of preference of course
I still think that games dont go full potential because developers make them for older PCs too, it is not just consoles holding them back.
lundy86_4
Well nobody said it wasn't easier. After all, that's largely the point of a console.
There are a wide variety of factors as to why developers don't gear toward higher-end PCs. It certainly isn't solely down to consoles.
Indeed, seems we agree :)
I would definatly like to see a game made specifically for a twin 700$ card setup, that would be interesting, though would sell terrible
Project Offset was one that made sense to do it, but probably did not think was viable as advertisement material, especially since hardware moves so fast
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
[QUOTE="mitu123"] Yes, but some ways it is. Crysis 1 wasn't held back in 2007, but when Crysis 2 did at launch, look at what happened.
mitu123
But Crysis 1 is on consoles and with the new engine
And I'm saying the PC version of Crysis 1 wasn't held back and it allowed to push graphics in every area. When the only thing console versions can compete is with lighting while being worse in other graphical features and missing a level and having framerate problems you know consoles could only handle the game while being butchered. It was hardly butchered. We were told for years consoles had no chance of running it, in the end there was just a few cuts to cram it onto 2005 hardware, that's impressive you have to admit.[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
[QUOTE="mitu123"] Yes, but some ways it is. Crysis 1 wasn't held back in 2007, but when Crysis 2 did at launch, look at what happened.
mitu123
But Crysis 1 is on consoles and with the new engine
And I'm saying the PC version of Crysis 1 wasn't held back and it allowed to push graphics in every area. When the only thing console versions can compete is with lighting while being worse in other graphical features and missing a level and having framerate problems you know consoles could only handle the game while being butchered.I would not call a game that looks great butchered TBH, still looks great and has better lighting, all the physics and scale/detail are in there too as it seems
[QUOTE="mitu123"]And I'm saying the PC version of Crysis 1 wasn't held back and it allowed to push graphics in every area. When the only thing console versions can compete is with lighting while being worse in other graphical features and missing a level and having framerate problems you know consoles could only handle the game while being butchered. It was hardly butchered. We were told for years consoles had no chance of running it, in the end there was just a few cuts to cram it onto 2005 hardware, that's impressive you have to admit. It runs it...poorly, sometimes the game gets as low as 4FPS according to Digital Foundry. During firefights it's not smooth at all. They changed the game mainly the engine, of course it would work on 2005 hardware, if they tried that with what Crysis did in 2007, it would never run. Plus Very High would blow those consoles up.[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
But Crysis 1 is on consoles and with the new engine
locopatho
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
I said gaming PC's with old hardware, like 2000$ PCs bought a year before xbox 360, not PCs in general, that would be like 1/100 of all PCs in the world since most people use them for work
Also consoles are mainly for people with jobs that can afford countless hours in installing games, tweaking settings, installing new drivers, patches, OSes and trying to figure out the keyboard keys for each game
lundy86_4
Good point, well in that case, what's the point in your arbitrary number? Who says that people have not upgraded?
Consoles are a large part of the industry, but I don't feel your point accurately cuts it. I have a job and am in full-time education, and yet gaming on PC is not a hassle.
- Installing games typically takes 10-15 mins (something PS3 games have started to dom with mandatory installs).
- Tweaking settings is mostly automatic nowadays, apart from people who do want to tweak for best performance/IQ.
- Installing new drivers can be a pain, but you can run on older drivers for a number of months with little hassle (unless they directly impact performance in a game).
- Patches can be largely automatic nowadays, especially with services like Steam.
- :? You install a new OS possibly once every 4-5 years or even more for many people (XP is still widely popular). That's about as long as a consoles lifecycle.
- Learning new controls takes a whole of 5 minutes, and it's the same with every games (consoles included). Hell, most games have tutorials :?
Oh really now? Installing takes 10 minutes? I'm assuming that's not including the hours it takes to download a game from say Steam? Playing right away on a console game is much faster than it is on a PC. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but PC games aren't auto start and play though.
And I'm saying the PC version of Crysis 1 wasn't held back and it allowed to push graphics in every area. When the only thing console versions can compete is with lighting while being worse in other graphical features and missing a level and having framerate problems you know consoles could only handle the game while being butchered.[QUOTE="mitu123"]
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
But Crysis 1 is on consoles and with the new engine
loosingENDS
I would not call a game that looks great butchered TBH, still looks great and has better lighting, all the physics and scale/detail are in there too as it seems
Lol, its looks ok for a console game but does not look great compared to the Pc version. Also it does not have all the physics, scale or detail, and has major performance issues when alot is going on.
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
I said gaming PC's with old hardware, like 2000$ PCs bought a year before xbox 360, not PCs in general, that would be like 1/100 of all PCs in the world since most people use them for work
Also consoles are mainly for people with jobs that can afford countless hours in installing games, tweaking settings, installing new drivers, patches, OSes and trying to figure out the keyboard keys for each game
StrifeDelivery
Good point, well in that case, what's the point in your arbitrary number? Who says that people have not upgraded?
Consoles are a large part of the industry, but I don't feel your point accurately cuts it. I have a job and am in full-time education, and yet gaming on PC is not a hassle.
- Installing games typically takes 10-15 mins (something PS3 games have started to dom with mandatory installs).
- Tweaking settings is mostly automatic nowadays, apart from people who do want to tweak for best performance/IQ.
- Installing new drivers can be a pain, but you can run on older drivers for a number of months with little hassle (unless they directly impact performance in a game).
- Patches can be largely automatic nowadays, especially with services like Steam.
- :? You install a new OS possibly once every 4-5 years or even more for many people (XP is still widely popular). That's about as long as a consoles lifecycle.
- Learning new controls takes a whole of 5 minutes, and it's the same with every games (consoles included). Hell, most games have tutorials :?
Oh really now? Installing takes 10 minutes? I'm assuming that's not including the hours it takes to download a game from say Steam? Playing right away on a console game is much faster than it is on a PC. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but PC games aren't auto start and play though.
It all depends on how fast your internet is.And I'm saying the PC version of Crysis 1 wasn't held back and it allowed to push graphics in every area. When the only thing console versions can compete is with lighting while being worse in other graphical features and missing a level and having framerate problems you know consoles could only handle the game while being butchered.[QUOTE="mitu123"]
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
But Crysis 1 is on consoles and with the new engine
loosingENDS
I would not call a game that looks great butchered TBH, still looks great and has better lighting, all the physics and scale/detail are in there too as it seems
It was butchered to get it to work...it couldn't even get the original engine and even with the new engine it looks to be on mostly medium with some low and a sub HD res and laughable framerate.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment