Actually those floppies aren't doing too bad since they were all backed up on CD's and run through Virtual Box, since well DOS is dead, and MSDOS won't emulate all it's features.
As to $4k+ gaming rigs if you build one that costs over $1000 your a fool, a system that can comfortably run just about any game on the market can be set up for about $600.
Actually those floppies aren't doing too bad since they were all backed up on CD's and run through Virtual Box, since well DOS is dead, and MSDOS won't emulate all it's features. So the PC game library doesn't go as far back as the Retro Duo then? Unless you pirate games and use emulators that is... As to $4k+ gaming rigs if you build one that costs over $1000 your a fool, a system that can comfortably run just about any game on the market can be set up for about $600.
Yes, JUST ABOUT any game on the market. The exception being those one or two games that you should be able to run but inexplicably can't because your drivers won't work under a new moon on thursday unless you sacrifice 300 virgins.
I want to PLAY games, not dick with the hardware or adjust graphics settings.
Actually those floppies aren't doing too bad since they were all backed up on CD's and run through Virtual Box, since well DOS is dead, and MSDOS won't emulate all it's features. So the PC game library doesn't go as far back as the Retro Duo then? Unless you pirate games and use emulators that is... As to $4k+ gaming rigs if you build one that costs over $1000 your a fool, a system that can comfortably run just about any game on the market can be set up for about $600.
Yes, JUST ABOUT any game on the market. The exception being those one or two games that you should be able to run but inexplicably can't because your drivers won't work under a new moon on thursday unless you sacrifice 300 virgins.
I want to PLAY games, not dick with the hardware or adjust graphics settings.
PC graphics is considerably advanced, and these are the GOOD titles! Some console version looks WAY uglier than the PC version. <insert gratuitous and unnecessary screenshots here>
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
Even if I squint really hard, I can't see enough of a difference to care.
Are the games unplayable because of the graphics?
Do the games play any differently because of the graphics?
No?
Well I guess that settles that then.
EDIT: I thought I was replying to the guy who posted the screenshots and not agreeing with the poster quoted. DOH!
Actually those floppies aren't doing too bad since they were all backed up on CD's and run through Virtual Box, since well DOS is dead, and MSDOS won't emulate all it's features. So the PC game library doesn't go as far back as the Retro Duo then? Unless you pirate games and use emulators that is... As to $4k+ gaming rigs if you build one that costs over $1000 your a fool, a system that can comfortably run just about any game on the market can be set up for about $600.
Yes, JUST ABOUT any game on the market. The exception being those one or two games that you should be able to run but inexplicably can't because your drivers won't work under a new moon on thursday unless you sacrifice 300 virgins.
I want to PLAY games, not dick with the hardware or adjust graphics settings.
Games!!! Games are what we're here for.
My rig cost me 750 and it can run everything.
That sounds like a thow down!
Alright....
Run Ultima VIII and post a screenshot.
And none of that Exult engine business. You have to run it the way it was originally released
PC graphics is considerably advanced, and these are the GOOD titles! Some console version looks WAY uglier than the PC version. <insert gratuitous and unnecessary screenshots here>
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
I saw your screenshots before and there was no reason to repost them.
Even if I squint really hard, I can't see enough of a difference to care.
Are the games unplayable because of the graphics?
Do the games play any differently because of the graphics?
No?
Well I guess that settles that then.
Doesn't that just settle that you don't need a high end PC? If graphics mean nothing, then you can play them on a PC, just fine. If you really want great graphics, you play them on a PC.
Computer will always be the most powerful gaming platform and as mass general computer knowledge ups (at this point most can upgrade there GPU, where RAM and OC is still a bit beyond the majority I think) it will make consoles obsolete. We see consoles steadily becoming computers greater flexibility more standardization (I’m thinking PS3s use of a standard HD as opposed to some proprietary POS). If we stop for a second and weigh what makes a console a viable platform at all
A console is very easy to setup furthermore all games that run on it are designed for it and thusly run perfectly (or as perfect as they can)
A console is (in terms of our entry cost) cheaper than a PC; for note you can get a PC for less than you can a PS3 however that PC won’t run much where the PS3 will always run all PS3 games thus to build a PC that will run any current game you are talking about 1k more or less to build it yourself (which is beyond most atm) or about 1.5-2k to have a prebuilt at similar specs
Stability; a console more or less takes care of its self no need to understand its workings to keep it up to par a PC on the other hand requires some basic understanding of how to maintain the system to keep it up to par (there are more than viruses to be concerned with as we all know {driver updates, various settings, keeping those nasty background processes to a dull roar, etc.}) which again is above the average game atm I think
The standard controls: this is a big one, many gamers I know that are more than just computer savvy (fellow programmers and techs) prefer the console for its controller and standard controls. Now we can argue that many games do support game pads and you can use PS3 or Xbox controllers for that purpose with little to no work however the control schemas very (several genre are getting better about standard controls i.e. WASD, space jumps, I for inventory, etc. but we have a long ways to go to get to where the consoles are) point in case with a console you can typically just grab the controller and go with it, each console has some standards as to the control schema so no need to read into it
Social play: when playing a social game i.e. a FPS on a console you *know* every player there has the same system specs short of the networking with a PC that’s just not true of course good design mitigates the differences in client responsiveness but I have heard several of my console friends gripe about this
So for consoles to die all of the above must be dealt with (plus others arguably), all of the above issues will fade away as the average person becomes more computer savvy, the computer becomes more stable and the console becomes more complex and costly but I don’t think it will end with consoles becoming PCs I think it will more likely hit a brief ridicules stage where we have proprietary computers (consoles) turn into complex drives for a PC (I would be happy with a PS4 drive to allow me to play PS, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games on my PC {you can already use your HD TV as a monitor and could use older TVs as well if you had the right graphics card}) but at this point we have to ask why the hell are we even bothering with this proprietary crap
PC graphics is considerably advanced, and these are the GOOD titles! Some console version looks WAY uglier than the PC version. <insert gratuitous and unnecessary screenshots here>
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
I saw your screenshots before and there was no reason to repost them.
Even if I squint really hard, I can't see enough of a difference to care.
Are the games unplayable because of the graphics?
Do the games play any differently because of the graphics?
No?
Well I guess that settles that then.
Doesn't that just settle that you don't need a high end PC? If graphics mean nothing, then you can play them on a PC, just fine. If you really want great graphics, you play them on a PC.
But why pay more for a PC?
And I'm not just talking money. I can build a fair to middlin' PC for around $400. I'm also not including the price of the mouse, keyboard and monitor into that since anyone who builds their own machines will have those things already. But my point is this: why would I want to invest that kind of time and money when I can just get a console off the shelf and never have to worry about compatibility issues?
Interesting facts:
1) Roughly 60% of all PCs are "white box" computers.
2) only 5% of all PC users build their own.
This is why the PC is a horrible platform for gaming. PC game developers expect their audience to be that 5% that makes custom rigs. When you look at it that way you can see that piracy isn't the issue at all. The actual size of the PC gaming audience is the problem.
PC graphics is considerably advanced, and these are the GOOD titles! Some console version looks WAY uglier than the PC version. <insert gratuitous and unnecessary screenshots here>
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
I saw your screenshots before and there was no reason to repost them.
Even if I squint really hard, I can't see enough of a difference to care.
Are the games unplayable because of the graphics?
Do the games play any differently because of the graphics?
No?
Well I guess that settles that then.
Doesn't that just settle that you don't need a high end PC? If graphics mean nothing, then you can play them on a PC, just fine. If you really want great graphics, you play them on a PC.
Agrred you simply can not argue this point, a computer will *always* be the more powerful gaming system so if eye candy is what you want then PC is the only reall option. Having said that unless you can build your own you are likely gona get raped to buy a system that can run any game you throw at it to full settings going back the other way again as new tech comes out you dont have to buy a whole new PC assuming you can read directions (build a PC is stupid simple if you just try) you can upgrade any PC for a resonable price (usualy) there will come a time when you need to upgrade the main board and CPU but even if you just upgrade you GPU as time goes on you will get at least 5+ years of top end visual gaming (i.e. the best possible graphics) where as a console can not upgrade its GPU (at least not yet) and when tehy finaly give you that option you will have to ask your self why the hell you are bother with a console you basicly have a PC that cant do any thing beyond media and even at that limits you to a particular flavor of media.
The only valid argument I have heard for console over PC are the ease of setup and maintance, the standard performance and controls you see on console and lack on PC; O' and cost of course we cant all afford to drop a k to build a nice PC. Once you allow the GPU to be upgraded you break the standard performance aspect, most games I have played lately support game pad and its been a long time since I payed a game you couldn't change the key mappings on so we are really left with the simplicity of a console and its relativly lower cost once you take thouse 2 away there is no logicle reason for the console to continue to be a main gaming plaform for gamers.
But back to your post arguing graphics as a reason for Console or PC is just a bit off, PC will always vastly trump console short of the day after a new console comes out at that point they are almost even (PC tends to be a bit better still yet if you have the cash and the right game to take advantage of it).
The biggest reason for me to like PC over Console is the size of the available library and the community aspect be it MODs for standalones or MMO style games whatever; I have yet to find a console based community that was worth anything at all where even primarly standalone PC games say Dragon Age (stricltly single player) does have a community several actualy which are active and linger longer than a 15min game session.
PC games do not vastly trump console games as far as visuals go. With the exception of the two Crysis games, games like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 are giving PC games a run for their money.
I mean i think the OP was merely ranting from one bad experience and shouldn't be taken seriously. Consoles are popular and will remain so. But that guy's video is a bad joke :P
Only partly sarcastic.
The guy in that video needs to take a few public speaking classes but his talking points were right on the money.
I don't judge speaking ability (my own is hardly any better.) It's mostly the mod comments (he has no clue what a mod is) and "shovelware" (if a system has 10 trillion bad games plus the Greatest Game Ever, that's the game people will play -- nobody cares about the quanitty of bad games on a system.)
I agree that the points which are valid (cost and hassle) are the reason consoles dominate PCs. His video's a bad joke, but yeah he hits upon that core indisputable truth. FWIW, I feel the OP just had a bad experience, ranted, and should be ignored for having a bad day -- it happens. Consoles will continue to dominate, and PCs will continue to stick around (although with software sales the money drains down a familiar pipe whereas with PCs the money is oozing into new cracks in the pavement; cracks called microtransactions, subscription fees, direct download, etc. This makes direct comparisons a bit more challenging, even though I'm still convinced consoles beat PC by a considerable margin.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Actually those floppies aren't doing too bad since they were all backed up on CD's and run through Virtual Box, since well DOS is dead, and MSDOS won't emulate all it's features. As to $4k+ gaming rigs if you build one that costs over $1000 your a fool, a system that can comfortably run just about any game on the market can be set up for about $600.
I would say it is closer to $800-1000 every 2 - 3 years, if you want to keep up with the latest graphics. And run high resolution. I update my video card every 2 years or so and spend about $400-600 on them. The rest is cheaper to update.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
Actually those floppies aren't doing too bad since they were all backed up on CD's and run through Virtual Box, since well DOS is dead, and MSDOS won't emulate all it's features. As to $4k+ gaming rigs if you build one that costs over $1000 your a fool, a system that can comfortably run just about any game on the market can be set up for about $600.
I would say it is closer to $800-1000 every 2 - 3 years, if you want to keep up with the latest graphics. And run high resolution. I update my video card every 2 years or so and spend about $400-600 on them. The rest is cheaper to update.
Yeah, PC fanboys are always a little cloudy on the price issue. My favorite is this one:
The price of a PS3 and a 52 inch 1080p HDTV is way more than the price of a PC.
What's funny is that when PC fanboys talk about the price of their computer, they're only talking about the compture itself. They don't include the monitor, speakers, keyboard or mouse because they assume that everyone already has all those things. But apparently not everyone has an HDTV or converter box? I'd assume that a PC with a 52 inch, 1080p HDTV (DVI inputs of course) would cost more than PS3 with the same. And the last time I checked, the PS3 works just fine in 720p.
And then there's the
Upgrading a PC is cheaper than buying a new console every five years.
Really? Let's examine that one.
These are the system specs for FarCry released in 2004:
Supported OS: Windows 98SE/2000/XP (only)
Processor: AMD Athlon 2400-3000+ or Pentium 4 2-3 GHz
RAM: 512-1024 MB
Video Card: 128 MB GeForce 4 128 MB to GeForce FX 5950; ATI Radeon 9500-9800 XT
Sound Card: Sound Blaster® Audigy® series
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (included on disc)
CD-ROM: 8x-16x DVD or 32x CD-ROM
Hard Drive Space: 4 GB
Multiplayer: Broadband with 64 Kbps upstream to play (512 Kbps upstream to host 8 players)
Now here are the system specs for Farcry 2 which was released four years later:
* CPU:
Intel Core 2 Duo Family
AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
* Video card:
NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better
ATIX1900 or better
512 Mb of graphic memory
* Memory:
2 GB
* Sound:
5.1 sound card recommended
* Media reader:
DVD-ROM
* Supported Video cards
NVIDIA 6800, NVIDIA 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops.
ATI X1650-1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series.
Now I'm going to be nice and assume that the full system overhaul that you would need between these two games will cost you about $400.
The XBox cost $150 in 2004. By 2008, the XBox 360 was available for $300. By going the PC route you save a whole $50. But you really didn't because you had to spend the time opening up your rig and shoehorning the components in yourself. If you paid someone else to do this, then you probably spent more. Was the extra work worth it? Was the extra money paid on the console side worth it? Depends on how you get your satisfaction. Do you want to play the game, or do you want to fiddle with technology?
There are thousand beautiful games that's sucks, do you play them? Not really.
Top end quality graphics vs medium ones are like huge HDTV versus medium ones. After a few minutes of entertainment you can't tell the difference because your mind is focused on what's happening not the graphics, unless you're watching national Geographic or just wandering around in a game.
Seriously who cares?
I personally hate aiming with a game pad in FPS and the fact that all studios have to increase the reaction time in console games due to the latency of the game pad. Not even better the aiming zone is made wider.
I also regularly rant towards devs that don't allow console players to remap every buttons to their liking, like they know better than me us how we like to play, lazy devs *&$#@! (AoC is far from perfect either)
How about custom UI, UI addons and player made content? Totally lacking in consoles.
However the plug and pray PC is due to die thanks for the consoles.
Still bring in keyboard and mouse support. I mean not the ability to plug and use them, but to have the same game feedback as on PC. Let us have player made content, be it skins, UI mods, maps and so on. Now you talk and with that, more or less, the PC will die, at least for some time.
The PC is the Dude from Big Lebowski. The PC doesn't crush, the PC abides.
Take a look at the past few years top PC sales charts, and it's not "core" games making up the top ranks. Typically, its Sims, WoW, with 2-3 wild cards each year. Last years were Spore, Dragon Age and MW2. Take a further look into the most accessed/played PC games, and the demons of social network sites and micro-casual games like PopCap's lines, and you get the silent majority of the PC "gaming" populus.
Yes, PC's can attain higher graphical fidelity than the current gen consoles. Now, what's the cost of ownership to achieve that? Typically 3-4x the cost of a console, and that can further inflate well into the 3-4000 range for a bleeding-edge system. So no, PC's won't crush anything. They'll abide. They'll continue to advance things, we'll continue to see consoles use prior PC innovations but integrated into a single-box solution, and people will still get-down with nonsense rhetoric on the internet.
The main advantage of consoles I see is that there is no rampant cheating in online games and I would pay for that if I didnt have to put up with the couch-potato controls.
A next gen console maker should just include a keyboard and mouse with the system along with the gamepad. Let developers create keyboard/mouse-only games and just label the boxes as such. I would say this is probably the #1 barrier of entry for most PC gamers and even some developers who cant dumb down a game enough to fit on a pad.
To Me, It not a question of whether PC's will survive consoles, but whether they will survive at all!
The PC home built system is pretty much of a dinosaur, and this is all that the PC gaming market can really rely on. Each year the computing public has new options that are easier, faster, smaller, and more specialized.
I don't know. I not so sure the industry as a whole wouldn't prefer it if all computing devices became specialized to the point that the Tech savvy, build'm in your garage type of customers simply faded into history.
PC gaming software market in 2009: $538M Console + handheld software market in 2009: $10.5B .. that is 20x bigger.
I played games both on PCs & xbox 360. Aside from MMORPGs, I prefer to play SP games on my 360 just because it is much more comfortable (couch versus desk) and much easier (no installation, no set up, no checking if my hardware is good enough ... just pop a disk in and play). Graphics are comparable. Everything works and none of these video card not compatible shit. I highly doubt pc gaming is going to "crush" consoles any time soon.
I'm not sure where these stats come from but WoW makes more than 538m a year by itself.....
I have bought every console since the old days of nintendo and sega. My latest purchase was a Wii back on the day it was releases. I was really dissapointed. I have played it like 10 times since that. I just cant play console games anymore. I was a console nerd. But changed in like 2003-2004. Have almoste only been infront of my PC. So I agree totaly with you.
Comments
Actually those floppies aren't doing too bad since they were all backed up on CD's and run through Virtual Box, since well DOS is dead, and MSDOS won't emulate all it's features.
As to $4k+ gaming rigs if you build one that costs over $1000 your a fool, a system that can comfortably run just about any game on the market can be set up for about $600.
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
Yes, JUST ABOUT any game on the market. The exception being those one or two games that you should be able to run but inexplicably can't because your drivers won't work under a new moon on thursday unless you sacrifice 300 virgins.
I want to PLAY games, not dick with the hardware or adjust graphics settings.
Games!!! Games are what we're here for.
Yes, JUST ABOUT any game on the market. The exception being those one or two games that you should be able to run but inexplicably can't because your drivers won't work under a new moon on thursday unless you sacrifice 300 virgins.
I want to PLAY games, not dick with the hardware or adjust graphics settings.
Games!!! Games are what we're here for.
My rig cost me 750 and it can run everything.
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
Even if I squint really hard, I can't see enough of a difference to care.
Are the games unplayable because of the graphics?
Do the games play any differently because of the graphics?
No?
Well I guess that settles that then.
EDIT: I thought I was replying to the guy who posted the screenshots and not agreeing with the poster quoted. DOH!
Yes, JUST ABOUT any game on the market. The exception being those one or two games that you should be able to run but inexplicably can't because your drivers won't work under a new moon on thursday unless you sacrifice 300 virgins.
I want to PLAY games, not dick with the hardware or adjust graphics settings.
Games!!! Games are what we're here for.
My rig cost me 750 and it can run everything.
That sounds like a thow down!
Alright....
Run Ultima VIII and post a screenshot.
And none of that Exult engine business. You have to run it the way it was originally released
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
I saw your screenshots before and there was no reason to repost them.
Even if I squint really hard, I can't see enough of a difference to care.
Are the games unplayable because of the graphics?
Do the games play any differently because of the graphics?
No?
Well I guess that settles that then.
Doesn't that just settle that you don't need a high end PC? If graphics mean nothing, then you can play them on a PC, just fine. If you really want great graphics, you play them on a PC.
Computer will always be the most powerful gaming platform and as mass general computer knowledge ups (at this point most can upgrade there GPU, where RAM and OC is still a bit beyond the majority I think) it will make consoles obsolete. We see consoles steadily becoming computers greater flexibility more standardization (I’m thinking PS3s use of a standard HD as opposed to some proprietary POS). If we stop for a second and weigh what makes a console a viable platform at all
A console is very easy to setup furthermore all games that run on it are designed for it and thusly run perfectly (or as perfect as they can)
A console is (in terms of our entry cost) cheaper than a PC; for note you can get a PC for less than you can a PS3 however that PC won’t run much where the PS3 will always run all PS3 games thus to build a PC that will run any current game you are talking about 1k more or less to build it yourself (which is beyond most atm) or about 1.5-2k to have a prebuilt at similar specs
Stability; a console more or less takes care of its self no need to understand its workings to keep it up to par a PC on the other hand requires some basic understanding of how to maintain the system to keep it up to par (there are more than viruses to be concerned with as we all know {driver updates, various settings, keeping those nasty background processes to a dull roar, etc.}) which again is above the average game atm I think
The standard controls: this is a big one, many gamers I know that are more than just computer savvy (fellow programmers and techs) prefer the console for its controller and standard controls. Now we can argue that many games do support game pads and you can use PS3 or Xbox controllers for that purpose with little to no work however the control schemas very (several genre are getting better about standard controls i.e. WASD, space jumps, I for inventory, etc. but we have a long ways to go to get to where the consoles are) point in case with a console you can typically just grab the controller and go with it, each console has some standards as to the control schema so no need to read into it
Social play: when playing a social game i.e. a FPS on a console you *know* every player there has the same system specs short of the networking with a PC that’s just not true of course good design mitigates the differences in client responsiveness but I have heard several of my console friends gripe about this
So for consoles to die all of the above must be dealt with (plus others arguably), all of the above issues will fade away as the average person becomes more computer savvy, the computer becomes more stable and the console becomes more complex and costly but I don’t think it will end with consoles becoming PCs I think it will more likely hit a brief ridicules stage where we have proprietary computers (consoles) turn into complex drives for a PC (I would be happy with a PS4 drive to allow me to play PS, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games on my PC {you can already use your HD TV as a monitor and could use older TVs as well if you had the right graphics card}) but at this point we have to ask why the hell are we even bothering with this proprietary crap
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
I saw your screenshots before and there was no reason to repost them.
Even if I squint really hard, I can't see enough of a difference to care.
Are the games unplayable because of the graphics?
Do the games play any differently because of the graphics?
No?
Well I guess that settles that then.
Doesn't that just settle that you don't need a high end PC? If graphics mean nothing, then you can play them on a PC, just fine. If you really want great graphics, you play them on a PC.
But why pay more for a PC?
And I'm not just talking money. I can build a fair to middlin' PC for around $400. I'm also not including the price of the mouse, keyboard and monitor into that since anyone who builds their own machines will have those things already. But my point is this: why would I want to invest that kind of time and money when I can just get a console off the shelf and never have to worry about compatibility issues?
Interesting facts:
1) Roughly 60% of all PCs are "white box" computers.
2) only 5% of all PC users build their own.
This is why the PC is a horrible platform for gaming. PC game developers expect their audience to be that 5% that makes custom rigs. When you look at it that way you can see that piracy isn't the issue at all. The actual size of the PC gaming audience is the problem.
Your point is invalid. Sure these screenshots look better for pc but not everyone can run pc games at max settings. In fact, most can't.
I saw your screenshots before and there was no reason to repost them.
Even if I squint really hard, I can't see enough of a difference to care.
Are the games unplayable because of the graphics?
Do the games play any differently because of the graphics?
No?
Well I guess that settles that then.
Doesn't that just settle that you don't need a high end PC? If graphics mean nothing, then you can play them on a PC, just fine. If you really want great graphics, you play them on a PC.
Agrred you simply can not argue this point, a computer will *always* be the more powerful gaming system so if eye candy is what you want then PC is the only reall option. Having said that unless you can build your own you are likely gona get raped to buy a system that can run any game you throw at it to full settings going back the other way again as new tech comes out you dont have to buy a whole new PC assuming you can read directions (build a PC is stupid simple if you just try) you can upgrade any PC for a resonable price (usualy) there will come a time when you need to upgrade the main board and CPU but even if you just upgrade you GPU as time goes on you will get at least 5+ years of top end visual gaming (i.e. the best possible graphics) where as a console can not upgrade its GPU (at least not yet) and when tehy finaly give you that option you will have to ask your self why the hell you are bother with a console you basicly have a PC that cant do any thing beyond media and even at that limits you to a particular flavor of media.
The only valid argument I have heard for console over PC are the ease of setup and maintance, the standard performance and controls you see on console and lack on PC; O' and cost of course we cant all afford to drop a k to build a nice PC. Once you allow the GPU to be upgraded you break the standard performance aspect, most games I have played lately support game pad and its been a long time since I payed a game you couldn't change the key mappings on so we are really left with the simplicity of a console and its relativly lower cost once you take thouse 2 away there is no logicle reason for the console to continue to be a main gaming plaform for gamers.
But back to your post arguing graphics as a reason for Console or PC is just a bit off, PC will always vastly trump console short of the day after a new console comes out at that point they are almost even (PC tends to be a bit better still yet if you have the cash and the right game to take advantage of it).
The biggest reason for me to like PC over Console is the size of the available library and the community aspect be it MODs for standalones or MMO style games whatever; I have yet to find a console based community that was worth anything at all where even primarly standalone PC games say Dragon Age (stricltly single player) does have a community several actualy which are active and linger longer than a 15min game session.
PC games do not vastly trump console games as far as visuals go. With the exception of the two Crysis games, games like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 are giving PC games a run for their money.
Sarcasm?
I mean i think the OP was merely ranting from one bad experience and shouldn't be taken seriously. Consoles are popular and will remain so. But that guy's video is a bad joke :P
Only partly sarcastic.
The guy in that video needs to take a few public speaking classes but his talking points were right on the money.
I don't judge speaking ability (my own is hardly any better.) It's mostly the mod comments (he has no clue what a mod is) and "shovelware" (if a system has 10 trillion bad games plus the Greatest Game Ever, that's the game people will play -- nobody cares about the quanitty of bad games on a system.)
I agree that the points which are valid (cost and hassle) are the reason consoles dominate PCs. His video's a bad joke, but yeah he hits upon that core indisputable truth. FWIW, I feel the OP just had a bad experience, ranted, and should be ignored for having a bad day -- it happens. Consoles will continue to dominate, and PCs will continue to stick around (although with software sales the money drains down a familiar pipe whereas with PCs the money is oozing into new cracks in the pavement; cracks called microtransactions, subscription fees, direct download, etc. This makes direct comparisons a bit more challenging, even though I'm still convinced consoles beat PC by a considerable margin.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would say it is closer to $800-1000 every 2 - 3 years, if you want to keep up with the latest graphics. And run high resolution. I update my video card every 2 years or so and spend about $400-600 on them. The rest is cheaper to update.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
I would say it is closer to $800-1000 every 2 - 3 years, if you want to keep up with the latest graphics. And run high resolution. I update my video card every 2 years or so and spend about $400-600 on them. The rest is cheaper to update.
Yeah, PC fanboys are always a little cloudy on the price issue. My favorite is this one:
The price of a PS3 and a 52 inch 1080p HDTV is way more than the price of a PC.
What's funny is that when PC fanboys talk about the price of their computer, they're only talking about the compture itself. They don't include the monitor, speakers, keyboard or mouse because they assume that everyone already has all those things. But apparently not everyone has an HDTV or converter box? I'd assume that a PC with a 52 inch, 1080p HDTV (DVI inputs of course) would cost more than PS3 with the same. And the last time I checked, the PS3 works just fine in 720p.
And then there's the
Upgrading a PC is cheaper than buying a new console every five years.
Really? Let's examine that one.
These are the system specs for FarCry released in 2004:
Supported OS: Windows 98SE/2000/XP (only)
Processor: AMD Athlon 2400-3000+ or Pentium 4 2-3 GHz
RAM: 512-1024 MB
Video Card: 128 MB GeForce 4 128 MB to GeForce FX 5950; ATI Radeon 9500-9800 XT
Sound Card: Sound Blaster® Audigy® series
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (included on disc)
CD-ROM: 8x-16x DVD or 32x CD-ROM
Hard Drive Space: 4 GB
Multiplayer: Broadband with 64 Kbps upstream to play (512 Kbps upstream to host 8 players)
Now here are the system specs for Farcry 2 which was released four years later:
* CPU:
Intel Core 2 Duo Family
AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
* Video card:
NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better
ATIX1900 or better
512 Mb of graphic memory
* Memory:
2 GB
* Sound:
5.1 sound card recommended
* Media reader:
DVD-ROM
* Supported Video cards
NVIDIA 6800, NVIDIA 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops.
ATI X1650-1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series.
Now I'm going to be nice and assume that the full system overhaul that you would need between these two games will cost you about $400.
The XBox cost $150 in 2004. By 2008, the XBox 360 was available for $300. By going the PC route you save a whole $50. But you really didn't because you had to spend the time opening up your rig and shoehorning the components in yourself. If you paid someone else to do this, then you probably spent more. Was the extra work worth it? Was the extra money paid on the console side worth it? Depends on how you get your satisfaction. Do you want to play the game, or do you want to fiddle with technology?
Stepping into the pit once again.
There are thousand beautiful games that's sucks, do you play them? Not really.
Top end quality graphics vs medium ones are like huge HDTV versus medium ones. After a few minutes of entertainment you can't tell the difference because your mind is focused on what's happening not the graphics, unless you're watching national Geographic or just wandering around in a game.
Seriously who cares?
I personally hate aiming with a game pad in FPS and the fact that all studios have to increase the reaction time in console games due to the latency of the game pad. Not even better the aiming zone is made wider.
I also regularly rant towards devs that don't allow console players to remap every buttons to their liking, like they know better than me us how we like to play, lazy devs *&$#@! (AoC is far from perfect either)
How about custom UI, UI addons and player made content? Totally lacking in consoles.
However the plug and pray PC is due to die thanks for the consoles.
Still bring in keyboard and mouse support. I mean not the ability to plug and use them, but to have the same game feedback as on PC. Let us have player made content, be it skins, UI mods, maps and so on. Now you talk and with that, more or less, the PC will die, at least for some time.
That is the most idiotic post I ever seen on my life.
Yours is close in my book
I lol'd so hard at this post.
The main advantage of consoles I see is that there is no rampant cheating in online games and I would pay for that if I didnt have to put up with the couch-potato controls.
A next gen console maker should just include a keyboard and mouse with the system along with the gamepad. Let developers create keyboard/mouse-only games and just label the boxes as such. I would say this is probably the #1 barrier of entry for most PC gamers and even some developers who cant dumb down a game enough to fit on a pad.
PC or console, you tell me...
PC -- the platform isn't locked like a console.
Neither.
It's more like somebody gutted a netbook, threw away the screen and keyboard and then stuffed the rest into a lunchbox....
And good luck finding parts for that form factor...
On the other hand, I think this would make a damn fine emulator box if you hooked it up to an HDTV. I'm thinking Mythbuntu (32 bit) with Stella, FCE Ultra, DGen, Mednafen, ZSNES, Mupen 64, PCSX and MAME. Throw in a couple of Logitech wireless controllers and a bunch of ROMS and you'll have more game than LeBron James.
'Course you'd probably be ahead financially to do the same thing to an old clunker computer you have laying around the house...
Ok, I just had to login for the first time in.. ever to say this to the OP.
Unplug you modem. Look, no more internet. Your single player game are single player now, no matter what system you use.
[mod edit]
To Me, It not a question of whether PC's will survive consoles, but whether they will survive at all!
The PC home built system is pretty much of a dinosaur, and this is all that the PC gaming market can really rely on. Each year the computing public has new options that are easier, faster, smaller, and more specialized.
I don't know. I not so sure the industry as a whole wouldn't prefer it if all computing devices became specialized to the point that the Tech savvy, build'm in your garage type of customers simply faded into history.
I'm not sure where these stats come from but WoW makes more than 538m a year by itself.....
I have bought every console since the old days of nintendo and sega. My latest purchase was a Wii back on the day it was releases. I was really dissapointed. I have played it like 10 times since that. I just cant play console games anymore. I was a console nerd. But changed in like 2003-2004. Have almoste only been infront of my PC. So I agree totaly with you.