PCs and Consoles

[Yeargdribble]

I was reading a lengthy thread over on reddit that had devolved into a PC vs console trashing fest. It got me thinking about certain issues regarding the two platforms. I used to consider myself solely a console gamer (back in the NES/SNES) era. Over time (when I had a computer that could) I became a PC gamer and put myself into that category. These days I really wouldn't lump myself in with a single group and see no point. Obviously each have their pros and cons. Different styles play to the strengths of one or the other (e.g. RTSs generally are more favorable to PC).

Dumbing Down
I love sitting on a couch and playing games on a giant TV, but for years I've felt more comfortable at my PC. I spend most of my time there and when there's an option between PC and console, I would always pick the PC. How sad my experience with Oblivion would've been if I were playing it on console rather than PC with dozens of incredible mods. However, I'm finding that more games are taking the path of Deus Ex: Invisible War. UIs are dumbed down for consoles and that's incredibly frustrating. Luckily the UI of Oblivion was alterable (with mods).

Revelation
The first time I played a game with lazy porting was Assassin's Creed and oh how I wish I'd gotten it for anything but PC. Sure, I could play with a controller, but it was a notably console feeling game and the button mapping really was centered around that. I'm not complaining that it was bad or an issue of dumbing down, but rather that it was an eye opener that just because a game was available on the PC didn't mean it was best. I always liked the versatility, especially with graphics, but I don't think it was worth it with AC.

Moving to Console
So there are some games on my itinerary that are pretty old. Notably Dead Space and Mirror's Edge. For both I'm waiting until I pick up a PS3. I honestly think I may start favoring consoles simply because most games on PC are simply ports these days... and poor ones. I tend to let games settle for a while before picking them up and I think in the future I'll tend toward consoles unless there are reasons to get a game on PC.

Worth Playing On PC?
Dragon Age seems to be aimed at PC and I suspect it will have a decent mod community. I've yet to pick up Fallout 3 and when I pick up the GOTYE it will be for PC. Pretty much all Valve games I get for PC as well.

Future of PC Gaming
Pretty much everyone's forecast of PC gaming is pretty bleak. Piracy is hurting it but I think isn't quite the issue it's made out to be. Valve seems to do pretty well. I think some publishers like to use it as an excuse when there are low numbers. Pissing people off with DRM, crappy ported controls and poor game design might be to blame too. If the current gen of consoles really does stretch as long as it's assumed to then perhaps PC will catch up in graphics and maybe there will even be some publishers left who push toward that (even the makers of Crysis have backed out of pushing PC hardware).




So that's some editorial thoughts... what are your thoughts?

NOTE: Please leave the fanboyism out. Other than just having some juvenile loyalty to whatever you cut your teeth on, make some points to back up any such commentary if you feel the need to brag about which console or format is your golden boy.

[Bolivar]

I guess I feel kinda like you. Growing up I only played consoles, but once I got really involved in PC games, I wouldn't necessarily call myself either. Right now I mostly play my PS3, but there'll be stretches where I mostly play PC, hoping that'll happen soon actually if we can get our powerful PC fixed.

I really hate all the crap about piracy that allows people to make excuses for things. Yeah, it's bad, no one's denying that. But I was one of the millions of people who pirated Diablo II and that's still a top selling game. If anything it might be a way to weed out the weaker candidates.

PC has definitely been marginalized as a platform in this year more than ever and it's a real shame.

10 reasons 2009 was bad for PC gamers (http://www.mygaming.co.za/news/PC/4670-reasons-2009-was-bad-for-gamers.html)

^ I advise anyone to read this to know what's been going on in 2009. I think what Infinity Ward is doing is... some of the worst crap that's been pulled in this industry in a long time.

[Shattered Dreamer]

If I was to take one side or the other here I'd definitely say I'm more a console gamer. But at the same time their are certain aspects of each I have to mark out for!

RTS games for instance don't really work that well with a console controller. You'll never be able to fully immerse yourself in an RTS just limited to a controller. I'm a huge Age Of Empires fan & I mean huge!!! I love AOE as much as I love the FF series. RTS games should only be played on a PC & thats final!

I love the PC vs Console argument that centers around FPS games. I'm not sure which I live better I've played quiet a view FPS's in my time & I find it really depends on the game. Half Life was a truly epic PC FPS but Halo is an epic console FPS. This argument results in a tie in my opinion.

One game that surprised me in just how good it was on PC was GTA San Andreas. I absolutely loved playing GTA on PC you got more freedom in your movement being able to adjust the camera with the mouse & the in game MP3 player were you could listen to any of your favorite songs whilst playing is a stroke of genius & I'm surprised this feature hasn't appeared on the PS3 or XBOX 360 yet in newer GTA titles. My only criticism was the auto aim in the PC version it was rubbish but that made the game slightly more challenging I suppose.

[Freya]

I've become more of a PC gamer. I use to be all about the Playstation and the PS2 but as the next gen consoles came out, I couldn't afford those but I still had my lovely computer at my side. So I could spend the $50 here and there for a new game but I couldn't dish out a couple hundred for a new system and new games all at once. It just wasn't an option for me.

I think there are a lot more PC gamers than you realize. I don't think it'll be dying off anytime soon. 'Specially with how the economy is right now, keeping your PC as your gaming platform is much cheaper than wasting money you may need for other things to buy a console.

That's why I think they do make ports for a lot of games to be on the computer. They know there is a market there. They sometimes don't care about it as much as they would with the game on a console. That's where it was to start so why put a ton of effort to make it amazing on the PC? It's like they are saying, "here have the game but you know we're only doing this so you buy it. You should really just play it on the PS3/360. It's better."

I think blizzard will make gamers cream their pants next year. SC2 will most likely be coming out (i'll let you know when I get my beta key :p), the new WoW expansion should most likely be coming out and even Diablo 3 might be coming out. Those games are pretty much PC exclusive. Those games are pretty much power houses in the gaming industry. Sure they are no halo but that have a 20 yr head start on most upstarting games. You want cult following? Check blizzard out.

FPS's are good and all but I think those should stay on the console. And I think that's a point, there are genres that just fit on each platform. Also with MMO's being the craze, you can't really play them on a console. Believe me I tried with FFXI D:, just not the same. With the only few select areas for spells and such, i'd take a PC healer over a console Healer. :p

[Dreddz]

I think the death of PC gaming has to do with the fact that consoles caught up to PC's in terms of graphical capabilities. Up to the year 2000 the PC had games console owners could only dream of playing. Just look at Half Life for example. In 1998 consoles had nothing on that. Add on the fact that PC's had online capabilities and its no surprise that PC gaming was so big back then. Unfortunately for PC's, consoles eventually caught up on them. I reckon the Xbox was the one which hit PC gaming the hardest. It had Halo, which was a FPS on the same level as PC FPS's. And Xbox Live which brought online gaming to consoles. PC gaming suddenly didn't feel so special and unique anymore.

I was once a casual PC gamer back in the mid to late 90's. I was always more keen on console gaming but my parents did have a PC capable of playing games like Duke Nukem 3D and Doom. I think what put me off PC gaming for good was the extreme headaches that would arise from simply getting a game to run well. I remember buying Deus Ex Invisible War and literally spending days trying to get it to run properly. My PC met all the system requirements and yet it wouldn't run well at all. It was then that I said "smurf it" and gave up on PC gaming for good. I don't regret that decision one bit.

At the end of the day, consoles are cheaper, offer a bigger variety of games and can be played on massive 1080p televisions. Just compare that to huddling over a small computer screen and playing console ports months after their initial release and it really isn't difficult to understand why PC is dead at this point.

[Yeargdribble]

At the end of the day, consoles are cheaper, offer a bigger variety of games and can be played on massive 1080p televisions.

Mostly true, but I'd like to note that I often play my PC games on a 50" plasma and it's not that difficult. Most video cards that can run games these days have component outputs if not HDMI outputs.


literally spending days trying to get it to run properly

This is a huge problem, especially with crappy console -> PC ports. It's similar to the arguments about Mac vs PC. Macs don't make you work as hard to just be able to use them and why should a computer be much more difficult to use than anything else we use daily. On the flip side, if you are a knowledgeable PC user you get more out of it in terms of customization, lower cost, infinitely more 3rd party software, etc.

But why should we make that fight with getting our games to run. Unless it's a game that gets huge benefit from user created content (Sims, Oblivion) there's no need to fight it, though there are obvious reasons it's worth it in some cases.



FPS's are good and all but I think those should stay on the console.

I think this can definitely be argued in both directions. PC will always allow you to react faster with a mouse to aim than any control scheme with a controller and auto-aim is in everything these days and gives a lot of people grief. That said, I remember loving Golden Eye and having no significant problems with it. Obviously a lot of people love Halo. I think FPSs work equally on both platforms, but the design aspect of a given FPS can be tailored more toward one or the other.


So I could spend the $50 here and there for a new game but I couldn't dish out a couple hundred for a new system and new games all at once. It just wasn't an option for me.

This only holds true if you view it as a bulk purchase in this way. The same could be said for gaming PCs and to worse effect. People will argue that a good gaming rig would cost far more than a console. Sure when you buy the console at first it's a huge investment and it seems like you're paying around $400 to play one game, but long term you'll have a library of games. Divide out the cost of your console (specifically if it has other functionality like Blu-Ray) and it seems a lot more reasonable.

If you want to keep up with current gen games on PC you'll be shelling out a bit of money for PC upgrades along side the games anyway whereas consoles are a fairly flat rate and will work for half a decade.

While PC gaming has been a powerhouse in the past, history always slot you a place in the future. Remember when Gateway was the PC company? Remember when portable CD players were the way to listen to music? If something supplants an old tech that tech can either adapt or die.

[Slothy]

FPS's are good and all but I think those should stay on the console.

Any particular reason why you think that? Sure there have been some good console FPS games over the years like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, but to be fair some of the control decisions happening on the PC back then were somewhat questionable (like Quake requiring you hold down a button to free look). I think now we've gotten to a point where PC FPS controls are pretty much perfected outside of a few game specific commands and the general feel of the game, and I can't think of any instance where a console FPS in the last ten years really benefited from being on a console. Even the best FPS games on a console still feel slow and clunky compared to if they had been on the PC, and it can really take me out of the experience sometimes.

The FPS genre really was made for a mouse in my opinion.

[JKTrix]

I have a pretty beefy PC, and a decent (virtual) stack of games to play on it, but I find myself reluctant to play them because I'm always doing something else on my PC. It's much easier to turn on my TV and a console--even easier to pick up any one of my handhelds and start playing--than it is to get myself 'ready' to play a game on the PC. I doubt that's a widespread sentiment, that's just me. I can spend just as much time on my couch playing a console game that I can playing a handheld.

I do intend to get Dragon Age for PC though. One of the benefits of PC games is that they are $10 cheaper and are almost guaranteed to look better on my computer than their console counterparts. (Plus, I get an additional $10 off of Dragon Age.) Only issue with keeping up with them when they are released as multi-platform is that the developers understandably chicken out, pushing back PC versions weeks after the console versions.

[Yeargdribble]

I have a pretty beefy PC, and a decent (virtual) stack of games to play on it, but I find myself reluctant to play them because I'm always doing something else on my PC. It's much easier to turn on my TV and a consolethan it is to get myself 'ready' to play a game on the PC.

I don't really see quite where you're coming from here. When I'm at my computer it's not the getting ready part, but the being locked out of the rest of my computer part. That of course is remedies by have dual-monitors and being able to easily jump back and forth. I guess if you mean installation and patching I can see that. Usually when I've freshly bought a game I don't really have that initial problem because I'm excited enough to play that I don't notice the bothersome bit of install and patch time.

Conversely, being that I'm at my computer most of my free life, I actually find that mousing over and clicking an icon is easier than walking to the couch, turning on the TV, switching to the appropriate input, turning on the console, getting the controller, etc. The Wii is notably cumbersome if you're switching between a game that needs nun-chuck to one that needs classic controller, or whatever other BS peripherals not to mention actually changing game discs.



even easier to pick up any one of my handhelds and start playing

This I can agree with absolutely. I love just picking up a handheld with my recent poison of choice already popped in and just switching it on and starting playing. PSP is making me especially lazy because I'm getting used to bringing a game up out of sleep mode and BAM I'm exactly where I left off. It makes the DS seem slow by comparison because I actually have to suffer through the DS menu screen and then the game's title screen. Geez!! All that hassle. :roll2

[I Don't Need A Name]

I've always loved playing games on the PC. It's what I started playing on mainly, seeing as i just missed out on the Nintendo Era.
However, the main problem for the PC is it's inaccessibility. There are so many games that look awesome, and I think 'I need this for the PC'. However, I always get it for the PS3 if I can, because I know my computer won't hack the specs needed for new games.
For that reason I would say I'm a console gamer...but im still partial to the PC (Rebel Assault 2 people ;))

[JKTrix]

I don't really see quite where you're coming from here. When I'm at my computer it's not the getting ready part, but the being locked out of the rest of my computer part.

That's the part that I really meant :P 'Getting ready to get locked out of the rest of the computer.' Telling my IM contacts that I'm going to be unresponsive, pausing downloads to optimize the bandwidth, closing other random programs to make sure they won't interfere...

Also the DS has a Sleep Mode which is far more efficient than the PSP's. Just close the system. Ye just have to deal with the flashing light :P The battery lasts much longer too. I haven't tested it recently, but I've had a DS in 'sleep mode' for a week (after playing it for a few hours) and it still had juice. I've had a fully charged PSP on a plane ride once, played it for an hour and put it to sleep. The next opportunity I had to play it again (the next day), the battery was gone. Not at all scientific :P but overall sleep mode on the handhelds *is* pretty sweet.

[Yeargdribble]

Yeah, but if I turn my DS off after a session I have to boot it back up from scratch. I hate putting it in sleep mode and dealing with the light since very often I'm doing so as I go to bed and stick it on my nightstand. The PSP I'm actually switching off and then when I switch it back on later it's exactly where I left it.

As for the preparation on PC, I guess I just haven't dealt with it in so long. I've been using dual-monitors since I was still using 17" CRTs which was forever ago. If it's a really annoying game that doesn't let me easily use my second monitor I just throw my laptop on the table and use that instead. Obviously this isn't an option everyone has so your point is fairly valid.

[Freya]

I don't have the money to invest in a long term thing. I don't have the $400 to spend and then wait around for more things. I'd be in a backlog of money and it'd take far too long for me catch back up. My computer works fine, the only thing I need as of now is a new graphics card and, like a console, I have to save up for it. The only thing though is I can still play games I have because my comp isn't that bad it's just when I do invest in a new graphics card it will just look prettier. But I have hardly any income to even save up as is!

Also I just think that a controller feels better than a mouse to play an FPS.

[Lionx]

I started out as a console gamer on the NES back in the days when i was a lil kid. However, nowadays i play more things on the PC rather than the console. The last console i got was a PS2/GC, and i have not found much reason to get another console. In fact i feel consoles are inferior presently outside of the games available for them. The reason for this is many:




-HDTVs:

Not wanting/needing to get those new HDTVs for the new games. My PC has a Flat Screen that has lasted me since the early 2002 and works great still. This is a huge reason for me, because i want to play Street Fighter HD Remix, but after seeing it look really weird on a normal TV i went...nvm.

Its easy to say get a HDTV and its inexpensive. But not everyone can afford one nor want to spend so much money on something when my other TVs are working fine. Its like adding on another expense just for console gaming.

A PC i believe does not fall under this category of limitations from all the games that i have played so far. Correct me if i am wrong though.



-Online play:

This one is suspect because all consoles have online capabilities now. However playing on the PC is free(unlike XBL, although i heard the playerbase is good), and designed that way for the most part.

An example is Street Fighter IV. I got this game for the PC, and from reports of people who have all versions of the game, this version's online play only falls behind the XBL's version. Meaning that it outdoes the PSN in terms of quality of players(!), and lag(unless your PC sucks, but mine barely fits the requirement and its awesome).

Its hard to say on this one, but the fact that i played online games on my PC more makes me more at home here. Chatting with text is easier on PC, there are cheaper headsets for PC that is used more than JUST talking to people unlike console versions, and if there are net errors, i believe its easier to fix than on consoles.



-Versitility:

Everyone has a PC, EVERYONE else you wont be online right now!

The PC has a much wider base of audience imo because there are more people with computers nowadays than those without. With a console, you are limited to those else who have the same console. For instance, only 3 of my friends have a PS3, and only 2 have Street Fighter IV. However with the release of the PC version, i can play with my entire circle of friends because, again, everyone has a PC!

Even my friends who have PS3s either did not get the PS3 version of the game, or returned it because why play with only one other guy on PSN when on GFWL everyone else is there because of accessibility?

Also controllers are a one time thing on PC, get a converter if you have to, but once you buy ONE controller/joystick, you probably wont need to buy another one (or SET if you want more than one) for the Xbox720 because the Xbox360's/Xbox controllers dont work on the new console. I have one PS2 controller+Converter, and one Joystick for fighting games, thats it, no more needed. You save more money this way.

Desktop computers, if you build one yourself, and upgrading your Graphics Card is about the same in price of a console, and last just about as long imo. My computer from 2004 can play any PS2 type game fine, like RE4 with no fuss. I can even play Street Fighter IV on this thing. However newer games i like to purchase like RE5 require a new card. But this card lasted me this long, and only now do i feel like i need a new one, with the price equivalent to that a console.

RAM, and other things are cheap nowadays too, with only Graphics/Motherboard costing a bit, so if you build your own, and upgrade smartly, you wont be spending more than what you would pay for a console. So i don't believe that consoles are there for affordability if you know what you are doing from the way i see it. Though...i could be wrong.

This does not include that your PC can be used for other activities, and games designed for PC,like FPS, and RTSs(....i mean seriously would you ever play Starcraft 64 or Halo Wars? Really?). FPS i know some people want a controller, but guess what? You can use one too for the PC! Whereas the console i am forced to use a pad.

As for those who like to sit in front of a TV instead of their monitor, i think a console is indeed preferable because it can squeeze into your DVD player or VHS player or whatnot easily. There ARE TV Tuners and other things though that you can hook your PC up to your TV however, which is another thing going in for them for versatility.

Bottom Line: It feels like a one time cost if you maintain your stuff right.

----

Personally i see no reason for console gaming to exist, and the only reason it is, is the consumers are buying it for some reason, and developers devoting money to making games on it instead of the PC, then releasing the ports it at a much later date. I mean seriously, it takes 5 months to translate a game(SFIV) onto PC? When the arcade version is made from a Windows XP board? GTFO, thats bs, the game would have done even better if it werent for this stupid business sense.

EDIT: If anything i think they were afraid the PC version will outsell the console ones.

That and its easier to say LOOK AT MY SHINY NEW PS3! instead of showing off your PC's specs (which i believe some consider nerdy or unappealing). But prove me wrong :D I like to see other views.

I will say that PSP/DS is awesome because of its portability. The PSP sleep mode is also GODLIKE. Can't live without it!

[Yeargdribble]

I hear a lot of people use the size argument. They want to play the game on a big HDTV, but honestly it's all in perspective. You know that thing where you put your fingers right in front of your face and center them over someone's head and can pretend your squishing it? Well, my 24" monitor a foot from my face looks about a good as my 50" TV 8' across the room. Honestly, by perspective the monitor is probably actually larger (takes up more of my physical field of vision) and being up close I can actually notice the details more than a giant picture across the room.

To add onto what Lionx said about the TV tuners for PCs, I'll take it a step further. My monitors are 1080p with HDMI inputs and a quick switch so I can switch between inputs. I can just have my Direct TV receiver plugged into one of my monitors (secondary usually) and watch TV on it right next to the game I'm playing on my primary while easily being able to switch it back to my PC input if I want to use it (or just use my laptop if I have it sitting at the table. It's becoming common for monitors to have HDMI inputs these days.

His points about pricing are pretty spot on. If you're a savvy consumer you can spend relatively little on a very good video card that will last for years. I personally shop well under top of the line with the intention of replacing it every 2 or so years and filtering the older cards into newly built (but cheaper and less up-to-date) PCs for other uses or to give to family members. RAM is almost dirt cheap and if you are smart enough to get a good MoBo you will be able to upgrade all of the rest of your rig for many years before having to replace it.



I love PC gaming, but I understand the downside for many. You don't just plug it in, pop in the game and go. I remember reading about Best Buy offering a service at around $150 to install your PS3 for you. It's stupidity tax. Sure that's ridiculous to us, but in reality console gaming is not so different. Console games are easy to manage.

If you're so inclined you could easily build a great gaming rig and run the right types of cables and play your game on your big HDTV from the couch with your PC (I do), but it's a lot of effort and requires some know-how. Time is money and it's easier to spend on consoles and not have to deal with it. Even I agree with this. I sometimes just want it to pop in and go.

It makes sense of developers to push titles to something like this. The hardcore PC gamer is a rarified market full of geeks. Geeks aren't sexy. You can't make gaming mainstream (read: more profitable) if you're catering to the geekiest people. Devs are going to broaden it out and make the best experience for people who are buying consoles and already have the exact pre-set hardware to make it work just by popping a disc in.

For me, I probably love PC gaming more, but as a result of the climate in gaming pushing towards consoles (which means substandard ports to PC), I'll play games made for the console on a console even if it costs me 10 bucks more in some cases. Sad, but true. Just like some people don't wanna fight with a PC to play a game, I don't wanna fight with a shoddily remapped control scheme.

[JKTrix]

Personally i see no reason for console gaming to exist

WOW

[Slothy]

Desktop computers, if you build one yourself, and upgrading your Graphics Card is about the same in price of a console, and last just about as long imo. My computer from 2004 can play any PS2 type game fine, like RE4 with no fuss. I can even play Street Fighter IV on this thing. However newer games i like to purchase like RE5 require a new card. But this card lasted me this long, and only now do i feel like i need a new one, with the price equivalent to that a console.

I would partially disagree with this to be honest. My card was pretty much top of the line when I bought it about a year and a half ago. I really can't see it still holding up to high settings on a lot of PC games for more than maybe another 3 years based on how games are developing. That's 4.5 years total if I'm lucky of not getting the best visual experience possible, while my PS3 and 360 (but not the Wii) are set to have near ten year life spans like the PS2 managed. Yes they'll start showing their age after about five, but with competent optimization of PC ports (which console games ported to the PC which seem to be all the rage these days almost never get), they'll still rival more powerful PC rigs in terms of performance. So basically, within the lifetime of the PS3, I'll be paying at least as much as a PS3 twice for a new graphics card (less if I find a good deal or stay away from absolute top end) to keep playing the most recent games. And of course that assumes that all of the other hardware in my PC holds up for ten years which it wouldn't. Keeping up to date on PC specs is not a cheap proposition even if you build your own (which most people never will and won't realize the cost savings). Now the higher price is easier to justify since the PC gets used for more things than just games, but upgrading for games is a tough pill for some to swallow when when their PC does everything else they want very well already.


RAM is almost dirt cheap and if you are smart enough to get a good MoBo you will be able to upgrade all of the rest of your rig for many years before having to replace it.

I have to disagree with this to be honest. The only way you'll have room to upgrade on a mobo is if you don't buy top of the line right away, which can be a good way to do it, though with most parts not really coming down much in price anymore except processors, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Even really fast RAM is fairly cheap compared to slower stuff. My point being that the more high end you go when you build the PC, the less room you have to upgrade later.

Intel and AMD go through socket designs like candy and anytime they release a new processor that is a clear leap forward they generally aren't backwards compatible with the last generation of mobo's. This means the only option for upgrading would be a faster processor in the family you already use since you can't use the new processor design in the older mobo. You might get some performance gain, but a faster Core 2 version isn't going to be as big a leap as say going from a Core 2 to an i7. Ram's another bugger as well since motherboards only support so much and at so high a speed. In fact, for $100 I maxed out mine with the fastest RAM it could handle with a full 8GB's. $100 is pretty cheap for that much RAM and there is no way I can improve it. Granted 8GB's is more than any gamer needs, but as faster RAM comes out, more of the slower stuff isn't necessarily as good. Better than having half the amount but still not a huge leap.

I could go on but this post is long enough anyway. My point being that while you could leave yourself room to upgrade when you build, within five years any upgrades available to you are less desirable and might get you a good two more years tops. Personally, I'd rather build something top of the line up front as cheaply as I can then totally replace it in five years or so so that I get a large jump in performance instead of a smaller step up. It is up to each person though, but if you're going to go with a cheaper build with "room to upgrade" I really think you're better off with another full build by about the five year mark.

[Yeargdribble]

Processors haven't been exploding forward the way they used to. You could be running a 4-5 year old processor that's still pretty decent and if the mobo has plenty of RAM expandability and a good PCI-e slot you'd be fine. I'm not expert, but I doubt that most games are bottlenecking at the processor. If you've got a bottleneck it's probably first the vid card or second the RAM with a distant third being the processor.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. When either the sh*t hits the fan with one of my machines or just feel like upgrading I often go ahead and get a new mobo and CPU along with the other bits usually about 3/4 top of the line or a little better mostly because I like to keep old machines that are mostly functional around for simple crap (like having a dedicated recipe finder/online cookbook in the kitchen or making a dedicated emulation machine for old DOS/NES/etc. games). However, those machines work fine and could easily be running a lot of great games especially with an upgrade. Sure they might not run Crysis, but that's 90% of computers.


In the end it's going to be preference. I don't really see any reason either (PC or console) should be excluded from the party.

[Mirage]

I used to have an AMD Athlon 3000+ from like 2005 along with a video card from around the same time. The only thing I needed to be able to play Mass Effect at a better setting than Xb360 runs it at (20% higher res and more antialiasing), was an 8800 GT, which I got for 120 dollars. Btw, my CPU was a bottleneck with this setup :p, but I later got a 4000+ single core, and then a 4200+ dual core for really cheaps :p. These are still pretty old CPUs though, so my point still stands. I can even play Crysis (on low)!


If you have a PC that isn't older than 4 years, you can bump its graphics capability to near or better than the current gen consoles for less than half the cost of a new console, so I don't think the price of PC capable of running new games is an issue, but maybe installing a 3D card on your own is.

As for the PC vs console gaming debate, I think it depends entirely on what kind of game you're playing. I think some genres work way better on PC than on console, and vice versa. Competitive FPS gaming for instance, is definitely in the realm of the mouse and keyboard, same with RTS games. What I think consoles have got over PC is where they are usually located. A PC is often located for example at the work desk you've got at home, or some other isolated room, at least mine is. My console however, is hooked up to my TV in my living room, a much nicer environment to be playing games in. Of course you can connect your PC to your TV, but most people don't do that, for example if they only have one computer, and they don't want to do all the other stuff on their TV as well. The PC is a multipurpose computer, and many of the things you do on it are impractical to do on a TV.

The ease of piracy on a PC is probably a problem too. It might not be as big a problem as some claim it to be, but it is definitely much bigger than on console games. The game developers then have two options: Make a console game that won't be pirated very much, or make a PC game that will be pirated 30% more than if it was on a console. Guess which is gonna earn them more money.

Btw I really hate it when games are ported to PC, and the controls aren't optimized for it. I'm looking at you, FFXI!

[Shattered Dreamer]

You guys are sort of explaining why I gave up on PC gaming all that messing about buying new RAM, graphics cards & everything in between. I buy the console & for as long as that current generation lasts it can play every game released for that format. Simple, easy, fun! I put the disc in it works & don't have to worry about my PC telling me it needs more RAM or a better graphics card. This is the triumph card in the hand of console gaming!

[Mirage]

That's why you have a nerdy friend who fixes it for you!

[Skyblade]

I find the battles between console and computer most puzzling as well. The differences between the two are getting smaller and smaller. Consoles ceased being simply gaming platforms last generation. This generation has brought them closer to computers. Custom operating systems, hardware additions, online systems, and plenty of features besides just gaming show that the gap is getting closer. To me, the main difference seems to be the control scheme, and the fact that the consoles have much more fixed system specs than PCs.

While I'm not predicting the death of consoles (or rather, the consoles becoming simply another PC) in the future, but if it did happen, I would hardly be surprised.

[Shiny]

I can see the appeal of PC gaming with the onslaught on Alienware and laptops. You can now play PC games on the go as you can portable consoles. I'm not much of a PC gamer because I find many of the more popular ones extremely time consuming and elitist. I just want to play games for fun, not have to constantly level up the character in a game that seems never ending.

At least with console games, I know there will be a conclusion -- a final result of all the leveling and actions I've done in the game. With games like World of Warcraft, you don't get that closure. I also dislike the controls for PC games. I like having a controller to grip in my hand and push a few buttons instead of the keys on a keyboard. Not to mention the fact that most PC games tend to take up a lot space on my harddrive. Two of the many reasons I prefer console to computer games. With the said, the only games I've really be into for PC is point and click adventures, The Sims series and shooters.

[Quindiana Jones]

I prefer console gaming over PC gaming because it's simply easier, in a sense. Well, more relaxed. I don't have to be sitting at a desk or a table with a controller.

Having said that, now that I (think I) have a powerful enough computer, I'm tempted to get Oblivion or Fallout 3 for PC, just because some of the mods look AMAZING. And I love Oblivion. Probably my favourite game ever. But once you've done everything there's little else to do.

I also want to buy The Witcher, because I'm a total fanboy for Polish fantasy adult RPG games. But these decisions may ruin my life because I'll never be able to put them down!