You are a console gamer. Why ?

[Sander]

I like to promptly sit in my sofa, in front of a 46"TV, in my living room, and play a game. Not is a desk, with a 17, 19 or 22 inch monitor two feet from my face, wait for windows to boot and/or to install the game.

MOST PC games are made to a medium hardware, not Top HW. Crysis is not a rule. Most PS3/360 games look BETTER than most PC games in a average/good PC. Only very exepensive high end PCs, with selected/rare games, are visually better.

PCs have way less game options than consoles. RPG and FPS... FPS and RPG... and that´s it.
Your PC gets OLD in a few years, while your console gets STRONGER in years. Wait for a 2010 PS3 game, wow, will look even more amazing (ok, we know the software gets better, of course).

PS3 has CELL, a processor many many many folds faster than any quad core ) yeah, had to say that... it can help the gpu a lot.

 

[jb]

"- Cheap platform. PC will require me to spend hundreds every few months just to keep up with demands of games."

This, is a lie. Plain and simple. You dont need to spend anything, once the system has been built or upgraded. Aside from a very few games, a system built a year ago, will run todays games just fine. Ive been using my same case, psu, monitor, kb, mouse, hd's, sound card, and dvd-rom for several years. The only thing Ive upgraded was the mobo, ram, cpu, and video card in three years. Did it all at once a few months ago, now Im good for at least a year, more than likely much more. $200+ every 2-3 months is just a silly thing to say.

I think there is some truth to both post. I agree with fallguy's point that you don't have to update your PC every few months. But the orginal poster had a point in that with consoles your game will always look the greatest it can with out any hardware updates a few years after you bought it (ie Gears of War 2) where that same is not true on a PC...

 

[Arwin]

I think there is almost nothing more boring than PC versus console debates.

I'm just glad they both exist to be honest - it will keep all parties on their toes, and the PC space just leaves more space for fooling around and making left-field stuff. Even for doing the closest thing to it on the consoles generally requires a PC anyway (like XNA games for 360). And choice is cool - if you have the money to burn to get more performance, it's great that you can. Why not?

That said, I'm very much a console gamer now. I've been a PC gamer for a long time, but ever since the PS1 I've been turning towards consoles, and the PS2 won me over pretty thoroughly. Most advantages have been mentioned, so I won't rehash them all, but on the topic of performance versus your buck I would like to make a brief point.

Yes, the console hardware will typically age fairly quickly versus PC hardware. That said, the console still has a couple of advantages that greatly increase its value proposition, especially for games:

- the console has tightly integrated hardware
- all consoles have the same hardware
- software for consoles can program to the metal (a fair few PS3 exclusives showing the advantage of this pretty well I think)
- console hardware will typically stay current for at least 5 years, during which any performance increase comes through software not hardware.

Now all these points coming together: consoles will almost always do more in software with less in hardware.

Think about this: if you analyse the costs, say that you have 20 million consoles. If you want performance upgrade through hardware, and say you invest $80 per console to improve performance, that costs 1600 million. If you invest that same money into software, you can create 40 very high budget (i.e. 40 million), extremely optimized games. Now add that to all the other advantages, and for me the console is by FAR the better value proposition (for me especially the PS3, with the free online, the bluray, the browser, bluetooth, HDMI 1.3a, open standards for most hardware like wheels, headsets, keyboards, PS2 peripherals,, etc. etc. etc. ) ...

 

[pjbliverpool]

I didn't really want to get into this kind of debate but this post was just itching for a response...

I like to promptly sit in my sofa, in front of a 46"TV, in my living room, and play a game.

So do I, and there's nothing stopping me doing that with my PC. In fact I do it regularly with games that are well suited for TV play.

Not is a desk, with a 17, 19 or 22 inch monitor two feet from my face,

Which at the larger sizes fills more of your field of view and thus appears larger than a large screen TV would from several feet away. Thats why I prefer playing RTS's at the monitor, I can see whats going on better.

wait for windows to boot and/or to install the game.

Windows starts from sleep in about half the time it takes my 360 to boot up. And you install the game once, not every time you play it. Not to mention an installed game loads up faster than a none installed game in most cases, all other things being equal.

MOST PC games are made to a medium hardware, not Top HW.

That depends on what settings you like to play at. Very few modern games will achieve 1080p with 4xMSAA and 60fps on "medium hardware". And thats a console gamers nirvana as well as a PC gamers.

Crysis is not a rule. Most PS3/360 games look BETTER than most PC games in a average/good PC. Only very exepensive high end PCs, with selected/rare games, are visually better.

Thats complete utter rubbish. An "average / good" PC would be sporting something at least equivilent to a 9600GT these days which is much more capable than either console GPU. I have something similar myself and can promise you that it plays any and every console port at either higher graphical settings, higher framerate, or both.

Basically, any multi platform game bar a very few exceptions will look better on a $600 mid range PC today than they will on either console. And that $600 is buying a whole PC so the price is not directly comparable to a console. If you don't need a whole PC then the equivilent upgrade would be something in the order of $300 - $400.

PCs have way less game options than consoles. RPG and FPS... FPS and RPG... and that´s it.

So how would your describe all the multiplatform games available on the PC today? Its only a handful of console games, mostly the vendor exclusives that don't make it to PC these days.

Your PC gets OLD in a few years, while your console gets STRONGER in years. Wait for a 2010 PS3 game, wow, will look even more amazing (ok, we know the software gets better, of course).

My 8800GTS is 3 years old now and last time I checked it wasn't getting any weaker or less capable of playing console ports. Sure, the games themselves are getting better graphics in the PC space which my GPU can't always keep up with, but in comparison to whats coming out of the console space, its doing exactly what it has been doing for the last 3 years. And i'm sure it would for the next 3 if I those to keep it.

PS3 has CELL, a processor many many many folds faster than any quad core ) yeah, had to say that... it can help the gpu a lot.

Meaningless. Cell is faster than quad cores in some ways. And its much slower than dual cores in others. If that useable power is only put to use to prop up a weaker GPU then were is the net gain? What is it that Cell has done for PS3 games that is unachievable on a modern PC? Especially when you take GPGPU into consideration.

 

[fallguy]

I like to promptly sit in my sofa, in front of a 46"TV, in my living room, and play a game. Not is a desk, with a 17, 19 or 22 inch monitor two feet from my face, wait for windows to boot and/or to install the game.

MOST PC games are made to a medium hardware, not Top HW. Crysis is not a rule. Most PS3/360 games look BETTER than most PC games in a average/good PC. Only very exepensive high end PCs, with selected/rare games, are visually better.

PCs have way less game options than consoles. RPG and FPS... FPS and RPG... and that´s it.
Your PC gets OLD in a few years, while your console gets STRONGER in years. Wait for a 2010 PS3 game, wow, will look even more amazing (ok, we know the software gets better, of course).

PS3 has CELL, a processor many many many folds faster than any quad core ) yeah, had to say that... it can help the gpu a lot.

You can hook up your PC to your TV. And you need to install some games on the PS3, its not only a PC thing. Wait for windows to load up, as if thats even a concern. Hit the button, get a drink, take off your shoes, and its up.

There are good and bad about PC gaming and console gaming. But making ignorant statements does do any good. The best thing to do is, be both. If you have the money. You get to play all the games, how you want. Except for consoles being very slow adopting kb+mouse that is.

You do have a good point about 3rd or 4th gen games on a console, getting better and better. On a PC, having it for four years, would more than likely play pretty sluggish with new games.

 

[NRP]

Why not? Every single one of these threads was a skirmish in the War.

Well, I hoped (quite ignorantly as it turns out) that console gamers would drop in and explain their reasons for their choice and that would be the end of it.

Instead, the PC defense force just can't help but to come into a console thread and start arguments and pick peoples' choices apart with meaningless counter points. I swear these people spend more time in the Console Forums than they do in the PC forums.

Slightly amusing, but mostly sad.

 

[obonicus]

Well, I hoped (quite ignorantly as it turns out) that console gamers would drop in and explain their reasons for their choice and that would be the end of it.

Instead, the PC defense force just can't help but to come into a console thread and start arguments and pick peoples' choices apart with meaningless counter points. I swear these people spend more time in the Console Forums than they do in the PC forums.

Slightly amusing, but mostly sad.

It's not any more sad than anyone else, though. In the 360 thread you had people bashing and defending it. In the PS3 thread you had people bashing and defending it. All 'defense forces' suffer badly from what Tycho from Penny Arcade would refer to as 'stockholm syndrome'.

 

[PhilB]

I don't think now, no matter how much I get inconvenienced, that I could ever quit PC. I love both my consoles (360, PS3) but with a lot of games coming out that are multiplatform, I'd much rather play on my PC (i.e. higher res, probably higher res textures, high quality AA/AF, definite 60fps were as the console will probably be 30fps guaranteed vsync and basically all around higher IQ).

In fact, even though I love my consoles, if all games were multiplatform there would be no reason for me to own a console at all. I'd much rather play everything on my computer, tweaked to my specifications

 

[djskribbles]

For me, it's a little bit of everything. Since I got my PS3, I've been gaming strictly on console. I used to play FPS on PC and everything else on console. I haven;t updated my PC in years, but my 7800 just died and EVGA sent me a 9800 GT as a replacement. Getting that made me want to start gaming on PC again, so I decided to finally get BioShock (great game BTW). I think I might start playing FPS on PC again. But there are so many exclusives on console that I will still do the majority of my gaming on my PS3.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Well, I hoped (quite ignorantly as it turns out) that console gamers would drop in and explain their reasons for their choice and that would be the end of it.

Instead, the PC defense force just can't help but to come into a console thread and start arguments and pick peoples' choices apart with meaningless counter points. I swear these people spend more time in the Console Forums than they do in the PC forums.

Slightly amusing, but mostly sad.

And here I thought a forum was about discussion. If you wanted a place to just state your thoughts without the risk of having them challenged or debated then why not just start a diary?

Everyones entitled to their opinions and in most cases they are completely valid in this thread. But when someone states something that is just patently wrong, surely that is grounds for some discussion around it? Or are we so afraid of this type of discussion that we would prefer to just propogate rubbish on these pages?

I'm sure if I started a thread in the PC forum entitled, "I'm a PC gamer because I don't like installing games and patches on consoles" there would be plenty of people who would want to challenge that. Are you suggesting that in order to keep the peace they should be dissuaded from doing so?

 

[Neb]

That's nice to hear. One reason for holding off upgrading my PC is the effort to keep it quiet. My PC is slighlty quieter than my PS3 when the fan hits 3rd gear, but it was a lot of cost to get to that point - a large copper CPU heatsink, quiet PSU, and so forth. Still, what you describe is both a fair bit of faf researching components and considerable cost (in the UK at least), versus getting a console. A major plus-point for me with PS3 is you just buy it and it's quiet, without having to go through any decision making process about which mobo to buy, which PSU, which heatsink, which GPU, etc.

It is satisfying that nowdays intelligent design and heatpipes have almost completly replaced those monster copper bricks that where hot before. But yes it still requires research to be done and some time invested in planning the build unless pre-built. Then building and configuration requires some time inside manuals. You are then of course more prone to incorrect configs etc etc. Even more if the target is silent PCs although www.silentpcreview.com is a savior. I would say it can be a step learning curve but the good thing is there is a lot of simple guides and good manuals that should prevent any problems arising and good forum help.

but in terms of ease the consoles are as easy as it gets and this is a large plus point for the consoles. But you know what they say high rewards require hard work!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, I hoped (quite ignorantly as it turns out) that console gamers would drop in and explain their reasons for their choice and that would be the end of it.

Instead, the PC defense force just can't help but to come into a console thread and start arguments and pick peoples' choices apart with meaningless counter points.

On a discussion forum, you have to appreciate any position you post may not find agreement with every reader, and they are free to debate your position. Or at least ,resond. Whether you care to follow up or not is up to you. So if someone posts 'I like using a console with my 47" TV and PCs can't do that' it's perfectly acceptible and expected for someone who knows otherwise to reply 'actually you can, and I do.'

So far the fans of PC gaming are keeping their side of the argument civil and based on valid points. There's no real call for the antagonism towards them.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Screw Windows, screw driver updates, screw patching, screw unreliable hardware. I'm aware of the Vista apologists, but seriously, no. No more Windows. I can't take it anymore. Of course, some of the same things put me off the HD consoles. Also the fact that 30 FPS with tearing is apparently standard now, and my Gamecube didn't do that. Other:

-local multiplayer (this should have been its own option)
-I'm into collecting classic consoles/games now
-Most PC games "phone home" and I have no home internet. Plus, you have to constantly DL driver/security updates.

 

[dobwal]

I've left the desktop space. Im strictly a lap top guy now. Its more convenient and I actually prefer working on the couch while watching TV and using on my labtop than sitting at some desk using a desktop.

Unless Nvidia or AMD start offering upgradeable preferably external GPU cards for labtops, the consoles are more than sufficient at providing my gaming entertainment which I prefer to enjoy in the comfort of my living room.

 

[Arwin]

On a discussion forum, you have to appreciate any position you post may not find agreement with every reader, and they are free to debate your position. Or at least ,resond. Whether you care to follow up or not is up to you. So if someone posts 'I like using a console with my 47" TV and PCs can't do that' it's perfectly acceptible and expected for someone who knows otherwise to reply 'actually you can, and I do.'

So far the fans of PC gaming are keeping their side of the argument civil and based on valid points. There's no real call for the antagonism towards them.

Of course, but these threads would have been more efficient and easy to read if we just keep collecting the arguments in the proper thread. People can say why they don't own a (specific or in general) console in the Why don't you own a 360 / PS3 threads, and here people can post why they don't game on PCs.

But hey, that's just my two-cents and they don't have much more value than that ...

 

[AlNom]

I've left the desktop space. Im strictly a lap top guy now. Its more convenient and I actually prefer working on the couch while watching TV and using on my labtop than sitting at some desk using a desktop.

Same here. I'm much more of a multi-tasker these days. Laptop + couch + console. Can't say I care for alt-tabbing, KVM switching, or shifting context away from the game at every free time-slice I get (waiting for game load screens or having discussions on PC).

 

[Phil]

Checked all of the above as well.

I just happen to like the 99% flawless experience. I much prefer to plaiyng my games with a dualshock controller rather than a clumsy keyboard/mouse. Most importantly though, nothing beats (for me) playing on my bigscreen beamer from 4 meter distance on a confortable couch without having to engage in any setting-up, config, installation procedures (that would require a mouse/keyboard) and I just like the games better.

The only market where I am envious of pc gamers are the strategy games (C&C kind of games) and realistic [jet] flight simulators. It's a shame there isn't really a market yet for those on consoles.

 

[Mobius1aic]

I'm pretty much a PC gamer only now, don't have the consoles anymore since I'm sick of all the clutter. I do play PS1 games on my PC though through emulation, and I use the actual CD-ROMs, no file ROMs/ISOs or copies, so I really don't do anything illegal (except maybe the use of a PS1 BIOS for the emulator ). I do like consoles, and my PC gaming set up is very similar to a console in that I'm leaned back in a chair, my lappy is hooked up to an HDTV via HDMI, and I use a wireless keyboard and mouse. I don't have a controller right now, and I wouldn't use it unless it gives me an advantage in anyway. Mouse and keyboard is king in my world.

For me, my computer is like a car, tweaking around and getting what performance I can is fun for me, I enjoy it highly. Plus having a laptop, everything I could honestly need is in a single machine that is nice and portable (Game machine, DVDs, Music, Internet, practical work) hence why I'm a fan of laptops especially, though I really like custom build PCs too of course. I'm the kind of person to have a laptop and a custom desktop, though currently all I have is my laptop.

Also, while others are starting to hold more disdain towards PCs and PC gaming, the opposite is true for me and my disdain goes towards consoles. MS, Sony, and Nintendo have purposely become so convoluted in what they plan and how they do business and it drives me up a wall. Sure PCs are convoluted as well, but despite the challenges of using them, there still seems to be more open honesty about them while the ethics of the console market take a nosedive. When I mention ethics, my view of them in reference to the whole gaming market is this: it's all about control over the market and consumer experience. With consoles, my whole experience is mostly at the reigns of one of the big three, and I don't like that. As stupid as it is the believe the internet and PCs are completely free from "tyranny", I can't help but appreciate the freedom of such risk even more so than having someone else pretty much line out my entertainment for me just to consume, crap out, and move on to the next thing to come out. It makes me think people are just becoming more conditioned to this crazy consumer culture of ours which is already bad enough. The used games market accelerated this problem a great deal, and I really hope to see Sony and MS as well as Nintendo find ways to make the used gaming business impossible to exist and thrive. And while Steam is in many ways an Xbox Live like service, there is still a very strong air of freedom and consumer commitment with it. The recognition of having a license makes it possible to have the same game installed to as many computers as you want as well not having to have the discs for playing or for later installation is a very nice plus. Sure PC gaming thrives on us buying games, upgrading our computers, buying expensive accessories, etc, but we're never forced into it really. And who can forget one of the ultimate freedoms of PC gaming? Mods baby! Not to mention the games are typically cheaper. So when you already need the computer, it's not all that bad spending the extra $100 or $150 to make it a machine that blows either console out of the water.

My current biggest fear isn't the wiping out of PC gaming, because it can't really happen, but the domination of console like computers. While my laptop is very much lined in this regard, I want PCs to always be pushing the boundaries of what technology has allowed us to gain, which PC gaming has always been around to push. So if hardcore PC gaming dies, will the upgrade and custom build PC industry die with it? I can't see the rise of video editing and multimedia enthusiasts being the ones to continue creating and upgrading computers if hardcore PC gaming goes by the wayside. Of course casual crap will always be around but I'm still pretty adamant that hardcore PC gaming won't die. Not to mention you got one of the most important PC games in years coming out by the end of the year: Starcraft II.