| steven787 said: High end PC gaming is expensive. Yes I understand that some of you could build a rig like that for less than the cost of a PS3. Most people can't or don't want to. Of course you only have to buy one controller for most PC games, most of them don't have multi-player offline/no lan modes. My point is that Mass consumers are turned off by all of the jargon and complexities. Hell I do web programming and I don't want to mess with all that. I want to put my game in and play it. No one is arguing that PC games don't look the best. |
High end PC gaming is expensive. Yes I understand that some of you could build a rig like that for less than the cost of a PS3. Most people can't or don't want to.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that - luxury Voodoo PCs can cost north of 17,000$!
Midrange PC gaming is as affordable (or cheaper even) as buying all three nex-gen consoles.
You are right that most people can't or don't want to bother, but some are willing, and some are even willing to do so because of the cost benefits (PCs aren't just for gaming, they are for a wide variety of applications). For some PC gaming is a hobby, just like console gaming is. PC hobbyists modify their PCs physical appearance, overclock them, and buy new parts for it - it's a hobby, like pimping your car!
For those not willing to put together their own PCs, they can buy from any one of a multitude of companies that offer pre-built systems.
There are many games that do not support multiplayer or LAN on a PC, but then again, there are many games that do. You can make the exact same comment about consoles.
Ultra-high-end boutique vendors such as Voodoo and Alienware have thrived (even bought by HP and Dell if I'm not mistaken). Midrange vendors like Gateway, Dell and HP offer PCs at compelling price ranges that allow you to game as well as do whatever it is that you do with PCs. These companies offer you pre-built computers that you need to assemble, and buying a computer for regular gaming needs does not require the consumer to know any more about computer jargon and complexities than the person buying a computer, say, for graphic design or web programming. Therefore, even if you are a mass consumer the choices you have to make (e.g. 1 or 2GB memory? 120 or 160GB hard drive? GeForce or Radeon?) are no more confusing than figuring out whether you want to buy the Core, Premium or Elite 360, or the 20GB, 60GB or 80GB PS3, or even:
LCD or Plasma, DLP or Projection?
720p, 1080i or 1080p?
HDTVs are mass consumer goods, yet these decisions are arguably equally costly and difficult to decide on than whether you want the 8600GT or the 8800GTX.
I can appreciate that you want to just put your game in and play it, but starting with this generation this isn't always the case. The early PS3 adopters could not just run home, pop in a game and play it. They had to first download a firmware update that could take hours. Patches are released for games that require you to download them before playing. Even Nintendo's Wii requires patching before you play Paper Mario or Mario Strikers, for example.
I wouldn't argue that consoles suck either. I think they are different means to the same end: To get your game on. I just feel that PC gaming has an undeserved bad rap at being too expensive for gaming, which it isn't. It may not be as seamless or streamlined for gaming, but that is because a PC was never designed with a singular purpose in mind - yet there are still many of us who are willing to put up with installs and graphics tweaking because in the end both consoles and PCs are perfectly capable of delivering the fun we seek at comparative and competitive prices.
Finally, check out the thread on free PC games in this forum - there are many outstanding games there that you can legally download and play for free. That in itself has got to be worth something!
