-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Consoles are just like PCs now, why bother with consoles then?
- Thread starter subversus
- Start date
Lasthope106
Member
Whenever threads like these pop up there is always a few people that mention that towards the end of a console cycle pc gaming gets stronger, and that these cycles have happened before.
Well, I would like to point out that we are heading into unexplored space here folks. For the first time a console generation is being extended for longer than usual, and some of the rumbling on the gaming press points at new consoles in 2013 at the earliest. That is two years away, TWO years! We are not talking a few months - that's about 40% of the life cycle of the PS3.
With that said, there is going to be a lot of threads like these popping up as more and more people start noticing the disadvantages mentioned in the OP. Sure, not everyone will be bothered enough to buy a new rig, but many - more than ever before - will be and come back to pc gaming.
Well, I would like to point out that we are heading into unexplored space here folks. For the first time a console generation is being extended for longer than usual, and some of the rumbling on the gaming press points at new consoles in 2013 at the earliest. That is two years away, TWO years! We are not talking a few months - that's about 40% of the life cycle of the PS3.
With that said, there is going to be a lot of threads like these popping up as more and more people start noticing the disadvantages mentioned in the OP. Sure, not everyone will be bothered enough to buy a new rig, but many - more than ever before - will be and come back to pc gaming.
Consoles really have been making a lot of ground on PC's in the last decade or two.
There was a time when most RTS, FPS games were PC only, but consoles figured out ways to adapt them well. Also, PC games used to be the bastion for online gaming, but that's pretty standard with console games now too.
I'm all in it for the games, whatever platform, but my experience with PC gaming has been for the most part a pandora's box of frustration.
There is a lot to be said for knowing a game will work when I go home and pop it in.
There was a time when most RTS, FPS games were PC only, but consoles figured out ways to adapt them well. Also, PC games used to be the bastion for online gaming, but that's pretty standard with console games now too.
I'm all in it for the games, whatever platform, but my experience with PC gaming has been for the most part a pandora's box of frustration.
There is a lot to be said for knowing a game will work when I go home and pop it in.
1. The games argument does not work b/c any of those games "could" be on PC. There is nothing about a PC that inherently prevents fighting games or any other genre from being developed for it. Street Fighter 4 has a PC version that works fine, and you can use your PS3 or 360 stick as well.
2. While consoles do have unified hardware, online play is still not even. Host advantage is a huge issue still. Of course they could solve this by using dedicated servers. On PC or Console LAN is used in serious competitions anyway. Often PC's are provided that all have the same specs, you just bring your own mouse/kb/mousepad.
3. Standard hardware on consoles is nice b/c you know the game will run and be playable (except in a few cases of buggy releases which do happen on console now). But you are limited as well. You may be limited to 30fps with no AA. On PC at least you can upgrade, or play the game years later at 100fps, at a much higher resolution and with full AA. Your console games will always look the same.
4. They could make a version of Steam (or similar software) which has an optimized interface that allows you to navigate and do everything with a controller.
5. The closed nature of consoles means no mods, no custom maps (usually), no hosting your own dedicated server, no offline mods/hacks. Any custom content that is available is only accessible through a closed system where your map could be removed for any reason. No hardware upgrades.
6. PC's may be more difficult to diagnose hardware issues or incompatibilities with games. But you also have more freedom in replacing individual parts.
7. Used games vs digital. The advantage of used games on console is that you can buy it, put it in and play it without worrying about if it will work or if the CD key has been used. However, the flipside is limited supply. A number of games eventually go out of print and became extremely expensive used, such as MvC2 on PS2/Xbox, or some of the Shin Megami Tensei games. On PC with mostly digital distribution you have unlimited supply, you never have to buy the game at launch fearing it will become rare.
Also many console games are including one time use codes now that only give multiplayer to those who buy the game new, or you cant play hours of extra content unless you bought it new. So the used game argument is weakening.
Both systems have the positives and negatives. I think PC could do much of what consoles do and make it easy to use if someone built an easy to use interface for home theater use and it was adopted by publishers (like a Steam Home Theater version or something).
Consoles could fix many of their issues by allowing users to do their own hardware replacements (for optical drives / hard drives / and even RAM). And allowing things such as dedicated servers. And still keep hardware uniformity (CPU/GPU/Minimum amount of RAM/minimum amount of HD space) Those with more ram might get a higher texture quality, but all else would be the same. Also make things such as LAN play standard features.
I like how easy consoles are to use, I like the freedom of PC. I think both could make improvements. But could PC do everything? Yes, if the correct software platform was there.
2. While consoles do have unified hardware, online play is still not even. Host advantage is a huge issue still. Of course they could solve this by using dedicated servers. On PC or Console LAN is used in serious competitions anyway. Often PC's are provided that all have the same specs, you just bring your own mouse/kb/mousepad.
3. Standard hardware on consoles is nice b/c you know the game will run and be playable (except in a few cases of buggy releases which do happen on console now). But you are limited as well. You may be limited to 30fps with no AA. On PC at least you can upgrade, or play the game years later at 100fps, at a much higher resolution and with full AA. Your console games will always look the same.
4. They could make a version of Steam (or similar software) which has an optimized interface that allows you to navigate and do everything with a controller.
5. The closed nature of consoles means no mods, no custom maps (usually), no hosting your own dedicated server, no offline mods/hacks. Any custom content that is available is only accessible through a closed system where your map could be removed for any reason. No hardware upgrades.
6. PC's may be more difficult to diagnose hardware issues or incompatibilities with games. But you also have more freedom in replacing individual parts.
7. Used games vs digital. The advantage of used games on console is that you can buy it, put it in and play it without worrying about if it will work or if the CD key has been used. However, the flipside is limited supply. A number of games eventually go out of print and became extremely expensive used, such as MvC2 on PS2/Xbox, or some of the Shin Megami Tensei games. On PC with mostly digital distribution you have unlimited supply, you never have to buy the game at launch fearing it will become rare.
Also many console games are including one time use codes now that only give multiplayer to those who buy the game new, or you cant play hours of extra content unless you bought it new. So the used game argument is weakening.
Both systems have the positives and negatives. I think PC could do much of what consoles do and make it easy to use if someone built an easy to use interface for home theater use and it was adopted by publishers (like a Steam Home Theater version or something).
Consoles could fix many of their issues by allowing users to do their own hardware replacements (for optical drives / hard drives / and even RAM). And allowing things such as dedicated servers. And still keep hardware uniformity (CPU/GPU/Minimum amount of RAM/minimum amount of HD space) Those with more ram might get a higher texture quality, but all else would be the same. Also make things such as LAN play standard features.
I like how easy consoles are to use, I like the freedom of PC. I think both could make improvements. But could PC do everything? Yes, if the correct software platform was there.
SonOfABeep said:
ST AE version is not the real game. It's AE. There's bug galore. If it was fine, why did they not use it for evo 2008? Because AE is not good.
Also, HD remix? You can't be joking. The classic version isn't even the same. The scene is dying because no one plays it. ST has more side tournaments than HDR these days on Super gun setups.
Third strike is fine I guess, still not perfect. Arcade purists don't compete on those simply because there's a speed difference.
MVC2 is arcade perfect. Of course it's fine.
So once again, ST has not had a suitable console port. That MEETS the standards of the competitive community.
- I like console exclusive games and genres.
- I prefer a gamepad to a keyboard and mouse.
- I prefer a large, low res television to a small, high res monitor. (I know I can connect my PC to a HDTV, but I usually can't find a place to put my mouse and keyboard then, and also lose some resolution in the process)
- PC games have more technical difficulties or a schizophrenic framerate due to developers having to make their games work across multiple hardware builds.
- PC has annoying DRM and installation restriction rules
- Hardware cycles annoy me. I'd rather buy something and be able to play the newest games for 5-10 years, even if they're slightly uglier or slower.
- I work on a PC, so I like to get away from them when I'm finished.
CitizenCope
Member
Pimpbaa said:
Well it's mine and I'm pretty comfortable with it.
vertopci said:
I meant modern games that are worth playing.
For some reason, looks like people took my post as if I was insulting PC gaming.
I'm a pretty heavy PC gamer, played CS since 2003, still play it occasionally, play Quake and League of Legends, I played StarCraft 2, Empire Total War and some of the newer stuff and looking to buy Minecraft.
I was just stating my opinion, which is that I felt the console side of gaming had more "momentum" and had more quality games coming it, compared with PC gaming.
Gully State said:
I buy Dead Space 2 for 360. It costs me $60. I play two hours and hate it, so I take it to Gamestop and trade it in for $40 credit (not the best way to get rid of the game, but probably the easiest.) I am out $20 but now have $40 to spend on another game.
I buy Dead Space 2 on Steam. It costs me $60. I play two hours and hate it, so I glare at my computer for a while. I am out $60.
Basically I'm not seeing how Steam comes out ahead for new games.
Cygnus X-1
Member
Gravijah said:
It happens more and more that the first answer is the best one.
vocab said:
The real question is, "Is it more expensive to build PC then to buy a console". I can get an arcade 360 right now for less then $200. I find the $400 argument to be irreverent because consoles don't cost that much anymore.
At the end of the day it really boils down to what the cheapest way to play games that people want. Consoles will probably always win this stand off. That alone gives them a reason to exists, lets ignore first/second party software because we already know its another valid reason.
Kabouter said:
RUSE?
edit: could have sworn you had "a console RTS game". Plural, makes it much more difficult. But there are some. Halo Wars, End War, Swords and Soldiers HD, upcoming to the PS3 Under Siege. But I concur that it's a difficult genre to thrive on consoles, but some efforts are to be commended.
goldenpp72
Member
Orellio said:
Not really contradicting myself, I play on consoles because I don't demand the bleeding edge. Sure running in higher resolution with nicer textures and AA would be nice, it's why I enjoy graphics on ps3 and 360 much more than wii. However, if i'm going to go build a brand new rig in order to experience technology that will blow me away, it would probably take exclusive games that really up the ante to do so, not playing the same games I already have but with higher settings.
Basically, if stuff like crysis was typical (as it used to be in the past) then I would probably feen for a new rig a lot more. Crysis got me excited, the graphics were (are) amazing and were in a league of their own. Going from that, to playing batman AA but this time with higher settings, just would feel kind of pointless.
Of course pc has a lot of fun games to play that i'm sure aren't on the consoles, but for someone who prefers big budget exclusives like gears of war, uncharted or halo, those are only available on consoles when referring to exclusives. Don't you think it's kind of bizarre that when looking at console exclusives, you have titles like alan wake, halo, gears, uncharted, last gaurdian, etc, that all push the graphical boundaries to their limits on the hardware, but then then look over at exclusive pc games and someone list minecraft?
I mean really? I'm sure minecraft is a fine game and all, but in times passed this situation didn't exist, the best looking console games were like, perfect dark which ran at 15 fps and looked like a wii game compared to a high level ps3 game. I just don't think pc gamers who spend the time and money on a super rig, get the bang for the buck they used to, but if I am wrong i'd like to hear it since i'm not against the pc market either.
Basically at one point, you had stuff like baldurs gate, everquest, quake, unreal, doom, even if one of those did get some kind of console version, it was such a huge downgrade no one would care to bother. Nowadays, unless you just can't handle using a controller, the difference in console to pc games is much smaller, and I don't think it's because consoles are really close to pc tech, I just don't think most developers bother to really juice the pc hardware for all it's worth because they feel the money is best used at equalizing console ports.
In that respect I could see how pc gamers could dislike consoles, but that's a different story altogether.
tass0 said:I meant modern games that are worth playing.
For some reason, looks like people took my post as if I was insulting PC gaming.
I'm a pretty heavy PC gamer, played CS since 2003, still play it occasionally, play Quake and League of Legends, I played StarCraft 2, Empire Total War and some of the newer stuff and looking to buy Minecraft.
I was just stating my opinion, which is that I felt the console side of gaming had more "momentum" and had more quality games coming it, compared with PC gaming.
Maybe FPS games because there hasn't been a good one since 2004. Other games, especially CRPG's are getting a pretty big push on PC these days.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
About spending tons of time setting up PC games.. most games have come with auto-detection since the PS1 days. Even if you change things around after the fact, at most it takes one minute to set up the game including remapping controls.
Mediocre at best, on any platform.Corto said:
Edit:
Halo Wars is an oversimplified atrocity, which is only worth playing for the cutscenes/Halo Universe development.Corto said:
EndWar is literally one of the most pointless and boring RTS games I've played in years.
Swords and Soldiers is good, but only one game.
Under Siege, no idea what it is.
In the perfect world, anybody who considers themselves a serious gamer (pretty much anyone who posts on gaf) would greatly prefer an open platform like the PC to a closed one. The extra time required to invest into getting the most out of your PC will be well worth it given all the benefit that it provides. We , of course, do not live in the perfect world and certain genre of games have little to no market on the pc (jrpgs, fighting) and other games are not just not available due to exclusivity rights. It's sad, because there is no reason why those games can't be on a PC and benefit from all it's advantages, but that's the reality. Therefore there's still a reason, for us gaf members , to own a console.
Precisely! Very rarely do exclusive games get developed for consoles because they're are the only platform capable of running said game. The majority of the time they're are developed for a single platform due business reasons and not technical ones. Console exclusive games would be better had they been developed for PC, since the platform itself is better and more capable.
Opiate said:
Precisely! Very rarely do exclusive games get developed for consoles because they're are the only platform capable of running said game. The majority of the time they're are developed for a single platform due business reasons and not technical ones. Console exclusive games would be better had they been developed for PC, since the platform itself is better and more capable.
Shalashaska161
Member
I see despite the OP's best intentions, this thread has devolved into PC vs. Consoles debate again. Let me try and take a guess at how this will go (if not has gone at this point, I haven't read the whole thing):
Console games are too low res. PC games are too hard to set up. Consoles are cheaper. Ya well games are cheaper on PC! You can't tweak console games, its the best. You can tweak PC games, it's the best. You can't even use a controller on PC. OMG U SO DUM YOU CAN. Steam is so great! Ya well Xbox Live is even better and has a sense of community! 360 doesn't even have a web browser! List wars! Comfy couch! Too angular angles! Brain explosion.
Who cares what you play on. Everyone has their preferences, and there is no point having this stupid every month.
In response to the original question, while I do see the consoles becoming slowly more PC like, the console manufacturer's won't ever allow their consoles to become open platforms. So while they may gain a few more features from the PC world, they are never going to be exactly the same due to this limitation.
Console games are too low res. PC games are too hard to set up. Consoles are cheaper. Ya well games are cheaper on PC! You can't tweak console games, its the best. You can tweak PC games, it's the best. You can't even use a controller on PC. OMG U SO DUM YOU CAN. Steam is so great! Ya well Xbox Live is even better and has a sense of community! 360 doesn't even have a web browser! List wars! Comfy couch! Too angular angles! Brain explosion.
Who cares what you play on. Everyone has their preferences, and there is no point having this stupid every month.
In response to the original question, while I do see the consoles becoming slowly more PC like, the console manufacturer's won't ever allow their consoles to become open platforms. So while they may gain a few more features from the PC world, they are never going to be exactly the same due to this limitation.
Lasthope106
Member
Corto said:
iammeiam said:
Well, you could of bought DS2 in the retail space, and you could of sold it if you hated it. I think if you bought it on steam, you would already own the first one (it's been on sale so many times for $5-6). With that being said if you beat the first one, and you liked it, chances are you'll like the second one or buy the second one. Now if the game was bad in the first two hours (which is quite the accomplishment), I can see why your argument stands, but come on, there's still research on game purchasing. Don't blame the DD market.
JudgeN said:
Yea, i never understood the "bbbbut I can build a cheap good pc that can play games for $500-$600 bucks no problem" Not every GAFFER has the ability to build a pc even, forget the average consumer hunting for those parts and putting it together. March into a retail store, theres a Xbox for 199 plus all the games that work on it right there. It isn't rocket science to see why its more popular with people, especially average people. Convenience, ease of use and setup, low maintenence and low entry point cost, large library with exclusive games. End of story.
Ploid 3.0
Member
RedSwirl said:
I forgot to mention that it would probably be too much for them. They are usually perfectly happy with what they got, however people pay geeksquad so much for simple problems so you could have a profitable point.
I'm saving up for a great PC but am thinking about having it built for me then shipped. I installed cpu's and stuff but I don't like doing it at all. Scared I'd screw up my new stuff or not do it that would allow for the best performance (paste/paste type for example). I'll most likely buy a stock pc that allow for a PCI-E slot and deal with whatever I can get.
My response to that would be to not play games on PC you've already played on console. I guess that can be hard for someone who's been invested in this gen of consoles for the past 4+ years. Never quite looked at it from that perspective before; I can see where you're coming from but as someone who's maintained a gaming PC for the same amount of time it hasn't been an issue.goldenpp72 said:
Honestly, no. There is a bigger up-front cost for console gaming development so pubs/devs have to ship products that they know will recoup costs at a $60 tag. There is a much smaller barrier to entry for PC games, which is why something like Minecraft can exist in the first place (and, conversely, big budget exclusive PC games do not). The way they have funded that game, it wouldn't have even been possible on XBLA or PSN.
MarshMellow96
Member
vocab said:
Isn't DS2 cheaper on Steam anyway?
![url]](http://[url]http://raoworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/double-facepalm.jpg[/url])
marathonfool
Member
I don't get the discussion in this thread. It seems like people are talking over each other and not making any sort of argument.
The OP question is so simple and easily answered. If you're a gamer, why would you voluntarily limit yourself to only one platform of games. If I had the money, I would own as many platforms as I could.
The OP question is so simple and easily answered. If you're a gamer, why would you voluntarily limit yourself to only one platform of games. If I had the money, I would own as many platforms as I could.
well, actually this thread had some good posts but I should've explained at the beginning, that I don't care about japanese gaming and Nintendo in particular (there are some REALLY good games that I like, but they all have been released on HD twins) and whole genres like fighting games for example (except MK series). Then people would've brought up some different reasons.
But in the end there was only one reason that's really important for me: exclusive games.
Yes, consoles have some really good exclusives as does PC. And this is the sole reason why I will probably buy the next-gen consoles. But on the other hand I might wait for a year or too before new franchises pop up on PC, like Mass Effect did.
Anyway, since I have no problems with setting up games, tweaking them and finding workarounds I still think that consoles are worse than PC now from my point of view as a customer. Being closed platforms they won't allow me to fix some shit that has been pouring into their "framework" lately and they've lost some of their advantages. Nobody in this thread had proved otherwise. While PC setup may be daunting for somebody it's not like that for me. But as we can see consoles are getting more and more complicated so I wonder will their accessiblity still be the case in the next-gen. Because last time I heard Sony considers serial keys as a measure of security, heh.
But in the end there was only one reason that's really important for me: exclusive games.
Yes, consoles have some really good exclusives as does PC. And this is the sole reason why I will probably buy the next-gen consoles. But on the other hand I might wait for a year or too before new franchises pop up on PC, like Mass Effect did.
Anyway, since I have no problems with setting up games, tweaking them and finding workarounds I still think that consoles are worse than PC now from my point of view as a customer. Being closed platforms they won't allow me to fix some shit that has been pouring into their "framework" lately and they've lost some of their advantages. Nobody in this thread had proved otherwise. While PC setup may be daunting for somebody it's not like that for me. But as we can see consoles are getting more and more complicated so I wonder will their accessiblity still be the case in the next-gen. Because last time I heard Sony considers serial keys as a measure of security, heh.
MarshMellow96
Member
Orellio said:
It's £29.99 on UK Steam, in comparison to the £39.99 360 retail.
iNvid02
Member
Recently got into PC gaming. Sold pretty much every PS3 game which i can play on the PC. All that is left now are the exclusives like resistance, killzone, infamous, uncharted, gow, red dead etc. I'll still keep buying/playing the exclusives PS3 offers but its gonna be PC for everything else now. Perfect combo imo
MarshMellow96
Member
Orellio said:
So I'm the one getting screwed for buying the 360 version..
Fuck these consoles man!
Ponn01 said:
I think what I take from these sort of threads is this: Why would anyone who posts on GAF not want to play games on PCs and consoles? I get why the average joe doesn't want to scrounge up the parts to build their own system, but given some of PC gaming's advantages - which aren't going away anytime soon - it seems odd that people don't go out of their way to have both.
I don't understand what makes people want to post troll posts like this. Not only is the RTS genre alive and kicking, but so is the point & click genre. And the PC certainly has far more to offer than those three genres, perhaps it would do you good to step outside the PS3 threads on GAF sometimes.Raist said:
Xenon
Member
It's not the same.
Sooner or later PC gamers will understand that not everyone..
1) cares about running games at 1920 x 1600 with 8xAA at the highest frame-rate possible.
2) thinks that M/K is the only true and righteous form of control.
3) wants to hook up their computer to their big screen TV. ( even if it is just a cable)
4) wants to put their personal information into and keep their gaming library on a DD service such as Steam.
5) wants to put in the extra time that PC games require.
Some PC people are like religious nuts. I am happy you have seen the light, but please leave me be in my wicked console ways.
Sooner or later PC gamers will understand that not everyone..
1) cares about running games at 1920 x 1600 with 8xAA at the highest frame-rate possible.
2) thinks that M/K is the only true and righteous form of control.
3) wants to hook up their computer to their big screen TV. ( even if it is just a cable)
4) wants to put their personal information into and keep their gaming library on a DD service such as Steam.
5) wants to put in the extra time that PC games require.
Some PC people are like religious nuts. I am happy you have seen the light, but please leave me be in my wicked console ways.
Teknopathetic
Member
"Honestly, the genre is pretty much dead on PC now as well. Just like point&click, space sims, and stuff like sim city etc. There used to be loads of good games in these genres in the past, but now it's mostly down to FPS's, MMOs and RPGs to a fewer extent."
You don't have to participate in every conversation. If you don't know what you're talking about, just don't post.
You don't have to participate in every conversation. If you don't know what you're talking about, just don't post.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Gully State
Member
Ploid 3.0 said:
Which is the same price as renting a game from blockbuster (trade token/shipping costs for sending in games). It's not that great of a value proposition. Not to mention the long queue as well as dodging queue exploiters. Console games do have great trade in value but on PC, DD has made trading in totally unnecessary with DD sales.