By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Fun Topic. Which are better for Gaming? PC's or Consoles?

@ Zenfloder VGI
When someone says that PC games are cheaper then consoles they are referring to owning them. Blu-ray movies are more expensive than DVD yet I can rent a Blu-ray cheaper than buying the DVD.  Renting and buying used console games doesn't help the gaming market like piracy does not help on the PC. (Renting does sell a few copies so it still better than piracy.)  Selling used games does help stores like Gamestop but not the developers directly This is one reason why FPS needs a good multiplayer so it will cause gamers to buy the game instead of renting as most FPS, like most console games, you can finish in one rental.

I do agree that piracy hurts PC gaming especially when it comes to games aimed at teenagers. (those who have jobs are less likely to pirate). Yet on the other hand renting and buying used games doesn't help console game  developers all that much either.



Around the Network

For some genres, like RPGs ,RTS' and FPS, and for some features, like mods, tweaks, patches, games price, etc, PC is the best, in the past it was also for the possibility to save games anywhere, if the developer didn't decide otherwise.
OTOH consoles are more imediate and hassle free, they give immediate fun. Neither can replace the other.
About PC being more expensive and so balancing cheaper games than console ones, well, if you need a PC anyway, configuring it with a better GPU isn't very expensive, if you aren't a maniac that always needs the latest liquid nitrogen cooled monster graphics cards. Being a PC retrogamer, I feel fine with Radeon HD3300 onboard graphics, its several times more powerful than my old Radeon 9250, it requires even less power and building my current PC with it cost me even less than adding a separate low-end card, but if I added a mid-range card,I'd have spent less than $100 more.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Smidlee said:

@ Zenfloder VGI
When someone says that PC games are cheaper then consoles they are referring to owning them.

It's also cheaper to own most consoles games that have been out over 6 months, because they are on ebay for about 10 dollars each. Example, MGS4 is 15 dollars used on ebay.

At the very least, the used market is much more robust on the console, due to DRM, which limited installs for many games, and made selling them used, impossible.

The used price also drops much quicker for console games, due to the large supply vs low demand of the product quickly after launch.

Contrarily, the new price of PC games starts lower.

Again, the used market is a positive of the console. The rental market is a hugh positive of the console. Those things, if you can manipulate them, allow you to play every game you want, as well as make a profit over the year of playing them, and keep your favorites in the bargin.

I bought my first HDTV off used 360 game wheeling and dealing. I got to play them all in the bargin as well.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ZenfoldorVGI said:

Wow, I've had a lot of great responses to my last post, and honestly, I didn't think that you guys stood a chance. I know that shio spends his existance arguing this, but I'm really quite convincing on this subject, and the fact that you were able to form decent argument has vastly impressed me.

Of course, being just one man, I can't respond to everyone, so let me throw you a few talking points as I come to them, and see if you have anything worth mentioning as a reply.

A. Senlis, you are dead wrong about one thing. Dependability is a problem with all hardware. Nothing lasts forever, and I don't care how you want to argue it, any PC part has the potential for mass market defect, just like a console part. I don't understand the miscommunication. Think about it. Consoles, however, have between 1 and 3 year warranties, while built computers don't have a warranty.

B. Also, IMHO, the "you can build X computer for X dollars in theory" argument is as old as dirt. It's not true. If you build a computer, be prepared to spend over 500 dollars on it. Otherwise, you will be running new HD games on medium with fluctuating stats in almost every case. People who really build computers, spend between 800 and 2000 dollars per build. Just because you CAN do it, doesn't mean you should. Shit begats shit. I mean, shit, how much did you spend?

C. Senlis, no controlling options is ever factually superior to another. It can't be. Some people prefer a joystick no matter what. They never learned to play with a mouse and keyboard. More accuracy does not equal "better" in everyones eyes, and some people would prefer the controls of The Conduit to a mouse and keyboard, because they are more intuitive. Let me reitterate, opinions are subjective, and that is the only fact in this argument. Again, please, look up the term "better" and then look up the term "subjective." You are wrong, sir, and you should admit it. Besides those things, I think we agree.

[cut out a lot of text that didn't respond to my post]

...but maybe you're right. Maybe the 360 is so much more important to gaming, that the RRoD was a bigger problem in the videogame industry than was PC piracy.

If console gaming died tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the core games being developed? Increase in amount, or decrease?

If PC gaming died tomorrow, how would it affect consoles?

/bow

I'm glad we agree on some points.  Let my clarify the ones you responded to.

A.  You previous post: "Dependability is a common issue with all hardware, and gives no advantage to either side. However, consoles do come with warranties, and built PCs do not." You never really said what the problem with dependability is.  If you are referring to how all hardware eventually fails, well yea that's true.  What I think of a dependability problem are consoles failing within 2-3 years.  That is horrible dependability.  The RROD from the XBOX360 is caused by heat issues.  I can easily increase the ventilation of my PC.

I guess you are saying build computers as a whole do not have warranties.  My motherboard is built by ASUS.  It has amazing dependability, warranty and customer support.  I remember one time that I flashed my ROM chip incorrectly and turned my computer into an expensive paperweight.  I called ASUS, and even though my motherboard was no longer under warranty, they sent me a new ROM chip already flashed.  I think the only gaming company that has comparable customer support may be Nintendo.

Back to Dependability is a issue because all hardware fails eventually.  You didn't refute my point that parts are easier to obtain and replace in a PC.

Better (according to Webster): improved in accuracy or performance.

Subjective (according to Webster): characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

According to Webster, KB/M is 'better'.

B.  I'll give you that one.  Maybe if someone is super dedicated and finds several "specials" or "sales" they can build it cheaper.

If computers do cost more, at least they do more.  I prefer to dual boot a gaming computer into linux so I can play games on windows, and do everything else on linux.  Keeps viruses off of my Windows system.

C.  Maybe I can explain my point better with an analogy.  Are manual transmission cars better than automatic cars, or is it just a matter of preference?  Manual transmission cars 1) Get better gas mileage 2) Give you better control over the car 3) has less maintenance on the transmission 4) transmission lasts longer.  Automatic transmission cars 1) are easier and more convenient to drive.

I already said in my previous post that a mouse is more accurate than motion controls or a joystick (positional based vs. velocity based).  That is a fact.  If you prefer joystick or motion controls over the mouse/keyboard, I won't fault you for it.  You never did disprove that a mouse is more accurate, you just keep saying it cannot be proven.

"If PC gaming died tomorrow, how would it affect consoles?"

PC pushes forward the graphics technology industry the same way Nascar pushed forward the automobile industry.  If PC gaming died tomorrow, advances in video games would come much slower.

"Wow, I've had a lot of great responses to my last post, and honestly, I didn't think that you guys stood a chance. I know that shio spends his existance arguing this, but I'm really quite convincing on this subject, and the fact that you were able to form decent argument has vastly impressed me."

Thanks.  I appreciate someone who likes a good debate.

@twesterm

"So, no, you didn't just shoot down my 3 reasons.  Stop assuming everyone has the same hard on for PC gaming you have.  I hate PC gaming and your endless ranting about how great it is isn't going to change that just like my endless ranting about console gaming will never change your mind."

Seriously?  You "hate" PC gaming.  Those are some strong words.  I don't even hate the xbox360, even though I would never buy one.




 

Alby_da_Wolf said:
For some genres, like RPGs ,RTS' and FPS, and for some features, like mods, tweaks, patches, games price, etc, PC is the best, in the past it was also for the possibility to save games anywhere, if the developer didn't decide otherwise.
OTOH consoles are more imediate and hassle free, they give immediate fun. Neither can replace the other.
About PC being more expensive and so balancing cheaper games than console ones, well, if you need a PC anyway, configuring it with a better GPU isn't very expensive, if you aren't a maniac that always needs the latest liquid nitrogen cooled monster graphics cards. Being a PC retrogamer, I feel fine with Radeon HD3300 onboard graphics, its several times more powerful than my old Radeon 9250, it requires even less power and building my current PC with it cost me even less than adding a separate low-end card, but if I added a mid-range card,I'd have spent less than $100 more.

There are many games that are CPU heavy, not GPU heavy. Like WoW and GTAIV. You can't upgrade your CPU, so if yours isn't up to snuff, you need to buy a whole new computer.

That's why, when you build a computer, you shouldn't buy the cheapest shit you can find that will play crysis. Crysis is a GPU game. There are PCs that play crysis on Very High at 40fps, yet still catch slowdown on WoW at 1080p with the draw distance all the way up, because it's CPU heavy.

When you build a gaming computer, you should spare no expense on the CPU. Otherwise, you will not be able to play soon to be released CPU heavy games.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
For some genres, like RPGs ,RTS' and FPS, and for some features, like mods, tweaks, patches, games price, etc, PC is the best, in the past it was also for the possibility to save games anywhere, if the developer didn't decide otherwise.
OTOH consoles are more imediate and hassle free, they give immediate fun. Neither can replace the other.
About PC being more expensive and so balancing cheaper games than console ones, well, if you need a PC anyway, configuring it with a better GPU isn't very expensive, if you aren't a maniac that always needs the latest liquid nitrogen cooled monster graphics cards. Being a PC retrogamer, I feel fine with Radeon HD3300 onboard graphics, its several times more powerful than my old Radeon 9250, it requires even less power and building my current PC with it cost me even less than adding a separate low-end card, but if I added a mid-range card,I'd have spent less than $100 more.

There are many games that are CPU heavy, not GPU heavy. Like WoW and GTAIV. You can't upgrade your CPU, so if yours isn't up to snuff, you need to buy a whole new computer.

That's why, when you build a computer, you shouldn't buy the cheapest shit you can find that will play crysis. Crysis is a GPU game. There are PCs that play crysis on Very High at 40fps, yet still catch slowdown on WoW at 1080p with the draw distance all the way up, because it's CPU heavy.

When you build a gaming computer, you should spare no expense on the CPU. Otherwise, you will not be able to play soon to be released CPU heavy games.

CPU is the least required component for upgrade. CPU can last for ages, especially since Multi-core CPUs established themselves (since Core 2 Duos came)



ZenfoldorVGI said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
For some genres, like RPGs ,RTS' and FPS, and for some features, like mods, tweaks, patches, games price, etc, PC is the best, in the past it was also for the possibility to save games anywhere, if the developer didn't decide otherwise.
OTOH consoles are more imediate and hassle free, they give immediate fun. Neither can replace the other.
About PC being more expensive and so balancing cheaper games than console ones, well, if you need a PC anyway, configuring it with a better GPU isn't very expensive, if you aren't a maniac that always needs the latest liquid nitrogen cooled monster graphics cards. Being a PC retrogamer, I feel fine with Radeon HD3300 onboard graphics, its several times more powerful than my old Radeon 9250, it requires even less power and building my current PC with it cost me even less than adding a separate low-end card, but if I added a mid-range card,I'd have spent less than $100 more.

There are many games that are CPU heavy, not GPU heavy. Like WoW and GTAIV. You can't upgrade your CPU, so if yours isn't up to snuff, you need to buy a whole new computer.

That's why, when you build a computer, you shouldn't buy the cheapest shit you can find that will play crysis. Crysis is a GPU game. There are PCs that play crysis on Very High at 40fps, yet still catch slowdown on WoW at 1080p with the draw distance all the way up, because it's CPU heavy.

When you build a gaming computer, you should spare no expense on the CPU. Otherwise, you will not be able to play soon to be released CPU heavy games.

ROFL.  We cannot upgrade the CPU in our computers?  Is that your final answer?.  I will leave that up to typo and let you re-post.

When building a PC, you are best spending the most money on your motherboard.  That way it supports the latest technology and the computer system can be upgraded easily for quite a while.




 

Senlis said:

I'm glad we agree on some points.  Let my clarify the ones you responded to.

A.  You previous post: "Dependability is a common issue with all hardware, and gives no advantage to either side. However, consoles do come with warranties, and built PCs do not." You never really said what the problem with dependability is.  If you are referring to how all hardware eventually fails, well yea that's true.  What I think of a dependability problem are consoles failing within 2-3 years.  That is horrible dependability.  The RROD from the XBOX360 is caused by heat issues.  I can easily increase the ventilation of my PC.\

I have a pelican fan stand on my 360 as well as a nyko intercooler TS. I also have 2 external exhauts I bought off ebay, modded onto my old PS3. If my 360 burns up tomorrow, it'll be replaced for free, the PS3 and Wii will probably take years and years to melt down.

You can easily mod consoles for cooling issues.

I guess you are saying build computers as a whole do not have warranties.  My motherboard is built by ASUS.  It has amazing dependability, warranty and customer support.  I remember one time that I flashed my ROM chip incorrectly and turned my computer into an expensive paperweight.  I called ASUS, and even though my motherboard was no longer under warranty, they sent me a new ROM chip already flashed.  I think the only gaming company that has comparable customer support may be Nintendo.

Back to Dependability is a issue because all hardware fails eventually.  You didn't refute my point that parts are easier to obtain and replace in a PC.

Better (according to Webster): improved in accuracy or performance.

Subjective (according to Webster): characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

According to Webster, KB/M is 'better'.

C.  Maybe I can explain my point better with an analogy.  Are manual transmission cars better than automatic cars, or is it just a matter of preference?  Manual transmission cars 1) Get better gas mileage 2) Give you better control over the car 3) has less maintenance on the transmission 4) transmission lasts longer.  Automatic transmission cars 1) are easier and more convenient to drive.

I already said in my previous post that a mouse is more accurate than motion controls or a joystick (positional based vs. velocity based).  That is a fact.  If you prefer joystick or motion controls over the mouse/keyboard, I won't fault you for it.  You never did disprove that a mouse is more accurate, you just keep saying it cannot be proven.

A mouse is more accurate in most cases, but it's also worse in many cases as well. Some games are built around joystick controls and impossible to play with a mouse(down-forward+HP). The PC supports joystick as well, however so does the console. However, the PC doesn't support games that I know of, with motion controls. Those controls greatly increase the enjoyment of games like Flower. So, it's really subjective which platform has better controls.

"If PC gaming died tomorrow, how would it affect consoles?"

PC pushes forward the graphics technology industry the same way Nascar pushed forward the automobile industry.  If PC gaming died tomorrow, advances in video games would come much slower.

If Console gaming died tomorrow, core HDPC gaming would die the next day, and would gaming even be worth playing without Zelda, Mario, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo? There would be no more millions sunk into top end games, except for Blizzard and maybe Valve. Without console sales, it would be an unsustainable industry(the high end core game), considering development costs. It would be like removing the movie theater from the equasion of viewing purchases of films. It would be an end of all we know of gaming, and a huge disaster.

If PC gaming ended, graphics wouldn't improve as fast?

Which one is more important to the industry?

"Wow, I've had a lot of great responses to my last post, and honestly, I didn't think that you guys stood a chance. I know that shio spends his existance arguing this, but I'm really quite convincing on this subject, and the fact that you were able to form decent argument has vastly impressed me."

Thanks.  I appreciate someone who likes a good debate.

@twesterm

"So, no, you didn't just shoot down my 3 reasons.  Stop assuming everyone has the same hard on for PC gaming you have.  I hate PC gaming and your endless ranting about how great it is isn't going to change that just like my endless ranting about console gaming will never change your mind."

Seriously?  You "hate" PC gaming.  Those are some strong words.  I don't even hate the xbox360, even though I would never buy one.

He's a spoony bard, ain't he?

Thanks. :)



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

shio said:
 

CPU is the least required component for upgrade. CPU can last for ages, especially since Multi-core CPUs established themselves (since Core 2 Duos came)

Dual core processors are becoming insufficient for maxing the latest CPU heavy games.

Anyone trying to build a mainstream rig or better right now, would be silly to go cheap on the CPU and pick up a dual core.

Quad-core is the only smart thing to do, and in that instance, you don't need to play it cheap, because your older games will potentially only run off one of those cores.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ZenfoldorVGI said:
shio said:
 

CPU is the least required component for upgrade. CPU can last for ages, especially since Multi-core CPUs established themselves (since Core 2 Duos came)

Dual core processors are becoming insufficient for maxing the latest CPU heavy games.

Anyone trying to build a mainstream rig or better right now, would be silly to go cheap on the CPU and pick up a dual core.

Quad-core is the only smart thing to do, and in that instance, you don't need to play it cheap, because your older games will potentially only run off one of those cores.

What the hell is with this "maxing the latest games" crap? Do you realise that nowadaymany console games have graphics so oudated that are only around the "low settings" of the PC versions? If you want to maximize everything you shouldn't even be buying consoles.

CPU heavy games are less than 1% of the PC's game releases each year. Less than 1%! You can count them with your fingers

You only need to buy a good CPU at the time of your buy. A good CPU, not overpriced, not top-of-the-line, just a good one. That's more than enough.