The hardware and technology is many generations ahead, whether or not the games on PC are utilizing it enough to be next-gen, that is the real question.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

I don't upgrade my PC because I don't want to. That's the only reason.

I enjoy playing video games on my consoles; there are plenty of benefits to console gaming just like there are to PC gaming.

And to all the people saying console gamers are just kids or losers with no/crappy jobs who still live at home or whatever, don't be so ignorant. Some people just have no desire to play games on a PC.

sSubZerOo

Yes...

Console pro's:

-Never needs upgrades

-Its really easy

-4-player splitscreen

-Few worthwhile exclusives

_cheaper in the short term.

PC pros'

-Better controls

-Better framerate (smoother gameplay, more comfortable to play)

-Better gameplay

-Better graphics

-If upgraded every 4-5 years, it becomes obsolete

- MANY worthwhile exclusives

-Extensive backlobg of cheap, old, yet quality gaames

-Cheaper games

-Free to Play

-LAN parties capable of being as large as a games mx playercount (ever had a 16 player LAN party with your friends? I have, it craps all over splitscreen)

-superior version of most multi-plats (by a large margin)

-Has far greater potential capability for making advaanced games

So, all of the advantages of consoles boil down to simplicity and short term flash as opposed to quality.

People associated with this mindset include: ADD/ADHD suffers, Children who want mommy and daddy to buy them a gaming device, people with little interest in or don't really care about gaming (therefore, their opinion on what platform is better holds little/no value), cheap scrooges, people with low I.Q's, people with low income/bad jobs, people who have no first hand experience with PC Gaming on a good rig. This is why many PC fans label console gamers as idiots, peasans etc...

:roll: Or they are two fundamentally different platforms, heaven forbid that a person enjoys BOTH.. Its posts like this that make me want to face palm.. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and if one has the money one should really play both if their hobby is gaming.

No they aren't fundamentally different, its just that the HD consoles are fundamentally worse at what they do, they want to make a game like Crysis 2, its fundamentally inferior to the PC version.

Something like the Wii, THAT is fundamentally different, a game system designed for low-tech fun and motion controls IS completely different, and the gaming industry would be far better off if the only non-portable game platforms were PC's and casual/party/family consoles like the Wii.

that way you want a super-high tech, hardcore, cinematic game like Crysis or uncharted or something, you could make it to its full potential on a PC, and if you wanted to make a fun motioned controlled game for parties, families, and casuals, you could make it as accessible as possible on a wii-like-device, where it was cheap enough for casuals to want to buy, and have the hardware be simple enough for them to want to deal with. The HD consoles are just half-assed platforms for either type of game. PS3 and Xboxare ruining/stalling the advancement of high-tech games, period. Meanwhile the PC is capable of games far more advaanced than most current ones, while the Wii helps make gaming more friendly to the mainstream, and brings the joy of gaming to those who otherwise wouldn't consider it.

Yet you will have to wait untill the next-gen consoles come out for "true" next-gen games:

nameless12345

(Edited out pic)

That's the big problem, truly next gen tech like this exists (That demonstration was done on a PC!!!)

But simply because the consoles are incapable of it, us PC Gamers won't get access to it until it could be released on a next gen console, CONSOLES ARE HOLDING GAMING BACK!! It's so disgustingly stupid, Epic should just release a game fully utilizing this tech, and if consolers can't play it yet, too effin' bad!!!

In the end, dev's should cater their games for the platform with the highest capability, whether its a high end PC now, or a next-gen console for the SHORT time its better/equally powerful as a PC, it shouldn't cater to more popular antiquated hardware, because if you make mind blowing games on the best hardware, more people will buy the hardware.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

PS4 and XBX720 were announced to release in six months, $700 for the 720, $800 for the PS4.

Wasdie

Wat.

This kind of behavior makes me ashamed to call myself a PC gamer.

My bad, that was supposed to be a hypothetical statement. I edited it to :

" Lets sayPS4 and XBX720 were announced to release in six months, $700 for the 720, $800 for the PS4."

What are your standards for "next gen"? Completely enhanced graphics/physics rendering? Higher res HD? 60fps standard as opposed to 30fps? Larger multiplayer playercounts? If a Console came out today with these features would you not consider it next-gen? More importantly, each generation of consoles is more expensive than the last, PS3 was $600 so what will this mean for next gen console prices? Imagine:

Let's say PS4 and XBX720 were announced to release in six months, $700 for the 720, $800 for the PS4.

So, would these consoles (if they featured the feature list at the beginning of the post) not be considered next-gen? Yes!!!

Well, PC is ALREADY THERE!!!!! Therefore PC is a generation ahead.

Also, would you rather buy an $800-900 PC that will be up-to-date for 3-5 years? Or wait 6 months for a $800 console that will only be as powerful as PC for maybe 12 months, and cannot be upgraded afterwards.

There is so much hypocrisy over the "PC isn't next gen argument". Maybe somebody will argue that PC isn't a gen ahead because it shares games with consoles via multiplats, well, when Xbox 360 released many games, especially sports games, also had PS2 and Xbox 1 versions while also being on 360, does that mean it wasn't next-gen compared to the older systems? NO!!

Stop using hypocrisy and misinformation to bash PC, its depressing actually.

I don't upgrade my PC because I don't want to. That's the only reason.

I enjoy playing video games on my consoles; there are plenty of benefits to console gaming just like there are to PC gaming.

And to all the people saying console gamers are just kids or losers with no/crappy jobs who still live at home or whatever, don't be so ignorant. Some people just have no desire to play games on a PC.

Blueresident87

Yes...

Console pro's:

-Never needs upgrades

-Its really easy

-4-player splitscreen

-Few worthwhile exclusives

_cheaper in the short term.

PC pros'

-Better controls

-Better framerate (smoother gameplay, more comfortable to play)

-Better gameplay

-Better graphics

-If upgraded every 4-5 years, it becomes obsolete

- MANY worthwhile exclusives

-Extensive backlobg of cheap, old, yet quality gaames

-Cheaper games

-Free to Play

-LAN parties capable of being as large as a games mx playercount (ever had a 16 player LAN party with your friends? I have, it craps all over splitscreen)

-superior version of most multi-plats (by a large margin)

-Has far greater potential capability for making advaanced games

So, all of the advantages of consoles boil down to simplicity and short term flash as opposed to quality.

People associated with this mindset include: ADD/ADHD suffers, Children who want mommy and daddy to buy them a gaming device, people with little interest in or don't really care about gaming (therefore, their opinion on what platform is better holds little/no value), cheap scrooges, people with low I.Q's, people with low income/bad jobs, people who have no first hand experience with PC Gaming on a good rig. This is why many PC fans label console gamers as idiots, peasans etc...

Probably because we are less intelligent thanmonkeys and think the console exclusives are better.

WarTornRuston

Fixed

I know, it sucks playing at sub-HD resolutions, being all grainy and hurting my eyes, and having most games run choppy at or below 30fps (its headache-inducing!!), a very restricted experience, and being forced to use controllers for aiming, which sucks!!!...oh wait, that's console gaming...nevermind...

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

Unfortunatly there are not many games to take advantage of it :(

Industry needs new consoles soon.

Mozelleple112

If you play in high resolutions you will need it:D

True, but unlike the cconnsoles, PC has moved on to 60 fps being standard...well, 1080p at 60fps is staandard.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="WickoSicko"]

His thread title is right.

Idiots saying how they have Activision "boycotted forever" and will never touch any game from them again. Then that special month of the year comes and every one of them buys CoD.

ShadowMoses900

Of course you would come to spew crap about CoD being perfect, and anyone who criticizes it is wrong. Don't listen to this guy, he is the biggest CoD fanboy in the forums. You can't see anything wrong, outdated, or repetitive about the series? Can't see that it owes its current success more to marketing and appealing to unskilled players? No? Well then there you go, you are stupid. I haven't bought a CoD since WaW (CoD4 was great, so I thought the next one would b good,I was wrong) I have played a little bit of each new one at friends houses just to see if they changed...nope.

You have a skewed veiw of Battlefield BTW, when I play on most maps with 64, 40, or 32 players, there is very little waiting, its alot easier for you view CoD as the best if you know nothing about other games.

I'm not a COD fanboy, but whatever. Alot of games don't change much and people still buy them. AlsoI can't play BF with 60 people, I played it on PS3 lol. The sessions were always full (orjust about)but I rarely came across combat, and when I did I usually ended up getting shot. I got bored and sold the game, in COD I turn it on and play and there's action all around, I don't spend hours walking around looking at the secenery like BF.

Just as I thought, you play the **** version of the game, way tofairly compare. BF3 on 60fps, 64/40/32 players is FAR better than the console or PC versions of MW3. So you really can't argue whether BF3 is better than MW3, all you can argue is whether console BF3 or MW3 is better, which is pointless because those aren't the best versions of either games.

I'm a BF fanboy (I guess), however

Singleplayer: MW3>BF3

Consoles MW3-Equal or better than- BF3 BF can't be handled on weak consoles, even with far less players and highly downgraded graphics, it has an unstable, 20-25 fps framerate, no smoothness, and the low playercounts make the maps boring. But that's what you get when you try to make a cutting-edge PC FPS run on 6-7 year old hardware.

PC: BF3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PC MW3