Which has been more important for gaming..consoles or pcs?(poll)

I mentioned earlier the online aspect of gaming which pretty much defined how the online aspect of games are today. Another is the sheer amount of customization options on many PC games. For example, I don't think there's anything close to the weather and cloud creation/customization of Flight Simulator X. I think it's been around in some form for 20 years now. I think the Flight Simulator franchise is now with Dovetail games. But, the weather tech is Microsoft's which means we might see it again in future Microsoft games.

Pretty sure this has to be a troll.

Independent developers are exactly that: independent. They exist not because of the mainstream, but in spite of it. I don't think you really grasp the whole concept of it.

By their very nature, they don't need the mainstream. They come up with their own ideas. They often generate their own revenue, or have teams small enough and passionate enough to work on things while they work day jobs.

I can live in a world without Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Assassin's Creed, and so on. I would not like to live in a world without Factorio, Prison Architect, Elite: Dangerous, and Halcyon 6, et cetera.

I'm glad both exist, don't get me wrong; I do enjoy the former in the list above. Just not as much as the latter. The whole irony is the "AAA" industry, the mainstream, used to take risks. They still do on occasion, but not enough to make anything memorable or refreshing. They used to be innovators. That's all gone now. The biggest risk they take? Turning Assassin's Creed into an RPG....I guess? Call of Duty copying Rainbow Six: Siege and PUBG? Wait, no, that's the opposite of original...

Mainstream is jaded and out of ideas. Thank god for independent games.

@mrbojangles25: I'm not talking about independent as they're not the only ones that make "artistic content".

Consoles.. If it wasn't for consoles we would not see Mario, Zelda, Resident Evil and the list goes on.. All we will see are FPS and sims!

of which ironically are all created and tested on a...wait for it...PC

A high-end PC was more expensive than a high-end TV in the '90s. If anything, the prices I gave are fairly conservative. Some high-end PCs went as high as $4000-5000 in the '90s.

Adjusted for inflation, a $2000-3000 PC back in the '90s is equivalent to $3000-6000 today. You don't have to be broke to have the common sense to see that is an insane amount of money.

Not back in the '90s. Back then, the market penetration of PC was generally lower than consoles. And most of the PCs that did sell were low-end PCs that could not technically compete with consoles.

again..I really am not intrested in getting into a debate over who is the cheaper option and I am 100% convinced that gaming didnt need 'the broke ass' solution in order to be successful.

I have been PC gaming all my life and I never had a lot of money until lately. really dont give a ^&* about your 'cheap meme'

Yo! Fxcking Genus, everyone and their mothers know those games created from PC, but those games I mention were made for consoles and it help gaming to become as big as today..

Out of interest what was the first PC you owned and how much did you spend on it.

And do you class the VIC20, C64 are Amiga as PC's or just anything IBM compatible onwards?

VIC 20 was my first, I have no idea how much I spent on it becasue my dad did

I have, however, spent about an asverage of $1500 every 3-4 years since the 90s.

look I am not debating that consoles are cheaper. I dont know if they are nor do I care.

I am just saying the cost of PC gaming is NOT what would have made it fail if the cheaper ass option never came along. One of the most popular games is friggin minecraft for christ sake! you dont need a Cyrsis machine for that,.

no idea your last question

Price is one of the most important driving factors in business, markets and economics. If price didn't matter, then there wouldn't be a global trade war right now over taxes and tariffs. And historically, price was a driving force behind movements like the Industrial Revolution and the Digital Revolution. The reason why PCs today have far higher mass-market penetration than they ever did in the '90s is because they've become much cheaper. Price matters, no matter how much you want to ignore it.

Both are important for different reasons.

Consoles are where most mainstream games are. PCs are where videogames are made, and offer smaller devs (indies) the opportunity to create/publish/share their work.

Consoles. How is this even a question?

you really really really really want to talk about this dont you. Cheap shit isnt a good indicator for sucess

Ok...are Porches not successful because they are expensive?

Is a McRib sandwich more successful then a good Steak? perhaps. but who the **** cares! because a steak is still better

Of cause Price matter.. Just look at launch PS3 and launch Xbox one!

so Porche is a failure because it costs more than a Yugo?

Since you want to talk about cars, let's compare car sales figures:

• Porsche - 237,778 cars (2016)
• Toyota - 10,213,486 cars (2016)

Why do you think Toyota sold 43 times as many cars as Porsche in 2016? Yes, you guessed it: Price.

let me ask it again (because the response is either Yes or No)

Is Porche a failure because it costs more?

YES or NO

because the suggestion here is that gaming would have FAILED if it wasnt for cheapness

I am ok driving the Porche of gaming and paying the price, rather than a Yugo

PC. By far. It has birthed and shaped the modern landscape of gaming,

Online Gaming -> FPS -> MMO -> Open World -> MOBA -> E-Sports -> Battle Royal.

Almost every single "next big thing" that absolutely DOMINATES the console scene is a shitty version of a PC creation. PC alone has 3-6x more revenue than any 1 single system. One PC game alone has more gamers than PSN. All consoles uses tweaked hardware which is made and designed for PC first.

Wow..What a Fuxking Genius.. Comparing cars to Videogames??? LMAO.. While you at it why not compare watches and Real-estate as well!

As far as innovations.... A personal favorite of mine is being able to have multiple displays on one monitor, multiple monitors, or both.

Even many PC gamers don't see the significance of it. But, I think it's very cool. :D I think it can be applied to other genres someday.

With the move to multicore CPUs, I think we'll see more and more of it.

it doesnt have to be 'the winner of the cheap option' in order for it to not be a failure.

the logic is stupid. we get it, consoles are cheap or whatever and console players dont own any PC in the house at all, but its not the cornerstone to the success of gaming as a whole, get over yourself and your cheap gaming option

Fuxking Genius!! Please explain why PS3 sold like shit before the price drop than!! Also get over yourself with the PC PC PC PC shit.. Games like Mario help introduce gaming to the mass public wether you agreed or not!!!

@tryit: YOU might drive that Porsche, but millions of others wouldn't be driving at all if that were the only option. Console gaming popularized gaming and made it mainstream and made Nintendo, playstation,Xbox, Atari, etc household names. Without that popularity gaming would be super niche just like expensive cars are compared to affordable cars from Toyota, Ford, etc.

This is what I originally stated: "The reason why consoles drew a bigger market was because they were more affordable."

This is not about success or failure, but about how to draw a bigger market. If you want a bigger mass-market, then prices need to be more affordable for the mass-market.

screw the mass public. lul.

yes I get that. but what is being said is this:

Porche is a FAILURE...because its not cheaper

they are saying the main reason gaming became successful is mostly because of cost.

Porche is not a failure

now I understand console players are really very obsessed with cheapness and dont own a computer and that is great that their option is less and that it brings in more gamers. I get that, reward for you! but its not the main reason gaming is successful by a long shot

oh I see you where just making a side observation.

ok well good for you I guess

but not really inline with the OPs statement. should we start over?

Which has been more important for gaming

cost or non-cost

cost has NOT been more important for gaming

I mentioned earlier in the thread how MOBA started on consoles, with the Sega Mega Drive game Herzog Zwei. It was adapted into the Precinct Assault mode of Future Cop LAPD on the PS1, which was then adapted into the StarCraft mod Aeon of Strife, from where you get modern MOBA games on PC.

Cost has been a driving force behind the video game industry right from the very start:

• Arcades, which only cost a quarter-per-play, were what spawned the video game industry.
• Gen 2 winner Atari 2600 was cheaper than its competitors.
• Gen 3 winner NES was cheaper than its competitors.
• Neo Geo sold far less than the SNES and Mega Drive because it was much more expensive.
• Gen 5 winner PS1 was cheaper than the Saturn and N64.
• Xbox couldn't compete with PS2 because it was much more expensive.
• PS3 was lagging behind the Wii & 360 because it was more expensive.
• Gen 8 winner PS4 launched for $100 less than the X1.

flip flop flip flop.

so in your mind the answer to the quesiton of

Which has been more important for gaming?

is actually 'cost' not 'I didnt say success or failure but I said brings in more customers'

which is different, so which is it?

sorry but things being cheap is not the most important thing in gaming, by a long shot.

The technology itself is far more important in that its radically revolutary in human history, that factor ALONE is more 'important to gaming' then the most cheapest option.

and I doubt very much I will ever change my mind on this mostly becuase i dont give a rats ass which is cheapest so I likely will not be in the debate for the long haul.

and to be frank, given that every game on PC AND CONSOLE are made on a PC, that fact ALONE suggests to me that PC is more important to gaming then consoles

@tryit:

I meant that cost is one of the most important factors, not the only important factor. There are a number of important factors, including cost.

My original response to OP was that arcades were more important than PC and consoles.

well that is even more ridiculous of a theory in mind.

basically you are saying The most important thing to WoW, and Crysis and The Last of Us, is teenagers in the 70s playing Donky Kong but not the computer chip

@tryit: The ridiculous argument here is your suggestion that an integrated circuit chip is a PC. It's a piece of hardware integral to all electronics. According to your logic, consoles are PCs.

and you saying its all because of Donky Kong is not?

nope sorry.

as a side note: our family was not wealthy, we skipped the arcades and went straight to PC (The Vic20). I know we dont represent everyone but by the same token its also not a friggin 3rd world country, cost really isnt the most important thing. the technology itself is AND not a single game of any kind on console or PC would exist if PC wasnt around. PC created these games.

I dont understand why consolers obsess so much about being the cheapest option around, when I grew up that was not something to brag about

Not Donkey Kong. Space Invaders, Pong and Pac-Man. I explained earlier in the thread why Space Invaders in particular is the most important video game of all time.

I didn't say cost is the most important thing, but that it's one of the most important things. Also, the OP was specifically asking about PC gaming, not PC as a development tool. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that most early video games were developed without PC.

I wouldn't consider myself a consoler. You don't need to be a consoler to understand how business and economics work.

sorry but the success of video games today is not dependent on anything that happened in the 70s or 80s other than the silicone technology itself.

If NONE nothing happened video game wise in the 70s or the 80s bu the silicon technology kept on going you would eventually see an explosion of video games today.

those very limited, by todays standard POS games are not as historically important to the success of gaming as you think it was, it would have happened regardless

Fake news. Stick to the real historical facts, instead of making up your own fantasy alternative-history fan-fiction.

so you are saying the most important thing to gaming is the Pong game that was created in the IBM lab.

great well maybe later everyone (including me) can get back to the OPs question

No, I said Space Invaders is the most important video game of all time. Followed by Pong and Pac-Man. Also, where did you hear about Pong being created in an IBM lab? Is that something you have evidence for, or something you just made up?

but Space Invaders would not exist if it wasnt for Pong etc etc etc.

but anyway, this is getting way off topic actually

They pretty much are in every sense of the word.

it appears sequential logic for progression only works when comparing Space Invaders to The Last of Us, not silicon however.

reasons? unknown

never heard of this shit called "electronics"

@scatteh316 said:

@tryit said:

@scatteh316 said:

@mrbojangles25 said:

PC

PC is the music artist that's been around for decades and is still killing it. They've maintained their integrity while at the same time remaining a constant innovator, reinventing and redefining genres. We'll be listening to their songs for decades, long after they're dead.

Console is pop music, console is Britney Spears. Sure, they sell records, but it's killing the industry. It's the same garbage over and over for people with no taste or genuine appreciation for art. When was the last time we listened to a "classic" Spears song? When it was new and on the radio?

There's room for it all, and I don't hate consoles, but PC started it and PC will be there at the end, standing upon the heaps of plastic bits that were consoles.

And yet with PC having to live off console scraps and multiplats the real reality of PC gaming goes like this:

The PC music artist who has been around for decades is no longer killing it and has to sample console pop music to order to release a hit.

live off scraps?

what the F are you talking about? I think I have 50 games in my Steam account and the vast majority of them are amazing and I think only small handful of them are on console.

so what the F are you talking about?

Triggered much....... Big budget AAAE games on PC are next to none existent and most of the high scoring AAA games on PC are mulitplats.

In fact, PC currently has no game on Metacritic that has scored a 90 or above so far in 2018 and the first game likely to break that is a console scrap (Yakuza)

Living off console scraps and indies while the consoles get the big budget exclusives....

How the mighty has fallen......

PC has more higher scored games than consoles....Jesus reading your rubbish is embarrassing.....

@zaryia: "PC alone has 3-6x more revenue than any 1 single system"

This is a PC vs consoles thread, all consoles count, so as a whole, consoles have more revenue, which address the thread and the market see the console market as a unified market.

You got owned again.

I think there should be an option for Both

Get out of here, you reasonable and diplomatic person! There's no room for your compassionate rationale. Go be a lovely human being somewhere else!

That would be fine coming from someone else that actually likes a lot of different platforms, but I constantly hear you hate on all others except yours. This isn't Calvinball, you don't get to make the rules up as you go. What are you? 10 years old?

Also, by that logic, I count Xbox as PC since pretty much all xbox games (especially exclusives) are now on PC as part of their whole deal. You got owned again again :P

See? I can do it too. Making up rules is fun!

I think that it’s the same as having competition among companies, they both contribute in different ways and push each other to try and do different and better things.