Support NeoGAF

[Denton]

To be honest, I have no idea personally as I haven't had a Windows PC in a very long time. But I've used Windows machines at work and they're always a nightmare. They seem to have random sh*t happening with them all the time. Maybe I've just had bad luck.

This is hilarious. PCs at work are indeed doing random shit all the time. It is my job to fix them.

My gaming PC at home ? Haven't reinstalled it in 4 years, since I got an SSD. Still as fast and rock stable as the day I installed it.
The maintenance ? Checking once every 6 months or so for new windows updates. That's literally it.

 

[alexandros]

Yes, I agree that the console are depressingly low spec this time around but I don't think you should be so quick to draw comparisons with similar PCs. Consoles are dedicated, optimised machines not general purpose PCs plus having numerous advantages on the software development side. The story of their performance is still being written. I think the PS4 will soon show it's a cut above any $600 PC but we'll see. When I look at InFamous: Second Son I feel confident in that prediction.

You may be confident and you have every right to be but there is zero real-world evidence to support that confidence. The beginning of a console generation used to be the time period at which consoles were at their most competitive phase compared to PCs until better hardware came out and the gap started to widen again. This time these brand new consoles have already fallen behind compared to even entry-level gaming PCs equipped with $120 graphics cards.

 

[Ramenman]

Of course PC games can be enjoyed at a lower res or without trying to max everything out.

I for one never go in the game settings unless I have some obvious framerate problem, need to activate v-sync (otherwise it hurts), or find something to be particularly ugly.

Other than that, I sometimes don't even know if some settings are on high or medium or whatever auto-setting the game installed itself with.



And like OP said, this isn't a jab at people who do enjoy building big rigs and running things super maxed out in 4k etc, I understand how some people take enjoyment in that too.

 

[Wiktor]

Well as I said in my other reply, a lot of that user engagement isn't really optional and it's a lot of hassle.

Yes, I agree that the console are depressingly low spec this time around but I don't think you should be so quick to draw comparisons with similar PCs. Consoles are dedicated, optimised machines not general purpose PCs plus having numerous advantages on the software development side. The story of their performance is still being written. I think the PS4 will soon show it's a cut above any $600 PC but we'll see. When I look at InFamous: Second Son I feel confident in that prediction.

You shouldn't expect as big improvements in console games as we've enjoyed previous gen. This just won't happen.

 

[Aselith]

 

[Abdul Hafeez]

Didn't expect this thread to derail into PC vs. consoles so quickly!

Like I said in the initial post, I think consoles are fine for people that prefer them, but I personally switched to PCs roughly 2 years ago, and my experience has been revelatory. There really isn't any maintenance that I'm aware of that would take longer than a PS4 firmware update. And in the time it takes to load a PS4 game, I could probably tweak the settings and start playing on PC. Also, mods are fairly painless these days, thanks to the work of awesome people in the community. <-- I know all of this sounds elitist, but that's not my intention.

But with all of that being said, you can still go the console route if you want to save money up front. I spent $1950 on my PC and a PS4 is $400, so that pretty much speaks for itself. Yes, there's no online fee on PC, but PS+ is a good deal even if it wasn't required for online play, so I'll give that a pass as well. But there really is no arguing with game prices being better on PC. I have over a 100 games on Steam that cost me about $500 (and this is because 2 of them were full price i.e. $50! X-Com: Enemy Unknown and Shadow of Mordor; the rest average out to less than $4 per game! I could've saved A LOT more money if I cared). For comparison, I purchased roughly 50 games on PS3 over the course of 7 years, but when I calculated the cost, it ended up being something like $1600. And I bought the PS3 at launch for $600. So that's already $2200 spent across that generation for fewer games, which is still okay since it was spread over so many years. That's basically what it comes down to. Buy fewer games for more money across many years or build a high-end PC and spend money up front to buy lots of games for dirt cheap. The former seems better for folks with limited funds in the short-term, so if that's the only way you can to afford to play modern games, then it's fine. Long-term, however, there's really no arguing with PC.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

for what a digital download? I prefer physical

Lol, this guy.

Well if you're not going to spend the time to tinker with it then what's the point? You may as well get a console. Plus I don't think that's strictly true. Lot's of the tinkering isn't that optional. Even just maintaing a Windows PC is more hassle than any console could ever dream of being without even considering the game specific stuff like drivers and so on.

Just wanted to address this point. Even if you aren't going to tinker you are still getting a product that runs at least twice the framerate of its console counterpart if not up to 4 times the framerate. And one looks better than its console counterpart. Even if you just want to pick up and play on a PC, it's still a better experience. It's fine if you want a console but please don't be disingenuous about the complexity and headaches of PCs. They're not that bad.