Oxigen_Waste Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Why don't more N-Ers go the PC way? It's always the best version. oO
The Peeps Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 If I want to play this with Bob I'll have to get the console version
Cube Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Why don't more N-Ers go the PC way? It's always the best version. oO Not always. GTAIV was pretty awful on PC.
Daft Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Because I associate my PC with work. The television and the livingroom, on the other hand, is a place I associate with relaxation and entertainment. I have a very strong sense of place.
Shorty Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 Yep, agree with the above. I sit at a computer monitor all day, games are in a comfortable living space, played from a sofa.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 27, 2013 Author Posted March 27, 2013 Not always. GTAIV was pretty awful on PC. Not sure if serious here, but I'll assume it's a joke. Because I associate my PC with work. The television and the livingroom, on the other hand, is a place I associate with relaxation and entertainment. I have a very strong sense of place. You do realize you CAN hook up your PC in the living room, right? oO I've always noticed most people in this forum have a very anti-PC mentality (not that people here are against PCs, but they just don't seem to care about them at all). Yep, agree with the above. I sit at a computer monitor all day, games are in a comfortable living space, played from a sofa. So none of you has ever heard of big picture mode or xpadder, then... oO
Cube Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 Not sure if serious here, but I'll assume it's a joke. Yes. I'm quite serious that the most poorly optimised console-to-PC port isn't great on PC. Even on a computer that runs Bioshock Infinite smoothly (with everything on Ultra) it's still a bit choppy. For what would be considered an expensive PC five years ago, it was virtually unplayable. Also, Big Picture Mode is awful (you may as well just choose the game on the normal Steam interface - it's much quicker than going into Big Picture Mode) and I'm not quite sure what xpadder is even for. Native 360 controller support is good.
Daft Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 You do realize you CAN hook up your PC in the living room, right? oO I've always noticed most people in this forum have a very anti-PC mentality (not that people here are against PCs, but they just don't seem to care about them at all). NO.FREAKING.WAY. Please tell me more of this magical world you live in. I don't need two PCs in my house and I'm not going to drag the one I have between floors every time I want to either work or play games.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 28, 2013 Author Posted March 28, 2013 Yes. I'm quite serious that the most poorly optimised console-to-PC port isn't great on PC. Even on a computer that runs Bioshock Infinite smoothly (with everything on Ultra) it's still a bit choppy. For what would be considered an expensive PC five years ago, it was virtually unplayable. Also, Big Picture Mode is awful (you may as well just choose the game on the normal Steam interface - it's much quicker than going into Big Picture Mode) and I'm not quite sure what xpadder is even for. Native 360 controller support is good. I have no clue what version of GTA IV you played, but having played it extensively on the PC after completing it on the 360 first, I'd say it's one of those games where the modding community is so incredible that there is just no contest. Icenhancer alone makes the game into a completely different beast, not to mention that the native stability on it is incredible ever since the fix! Besides, if this is going to turn into a race of which platform most games run better in, it ends before it starts. I don't use Big Picture Mode but it completely negates the "comfy couch" argument, which is why I mentioned it... It is, however, way more functional than you seem to believe. As for XPadder it basically assigns keyboardkeys/mouse clicks to the buttons/triggers/analogs on any controller you want, which allows you to play any game with any controller and is also quite handy if you have mouse keys/movements mapped into a controller (which you usually do, since the right stick corresponds to the mouse, usually) as you can then use your controller to navigate your computer while on the couch. =) It's pretty neat. I don't need two PCs in my house and I'm not going to drag the one I have between floors every time I want to either work or play games. I actually had that same problem so I just connected my PC to both the monitor in the "office" and to the living room TV through one of those high speed streamers. Regardless, I get it, you're not interested.
Deathjam Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I have no clue what version of GTA IV you played, but having played it extensively on the PC after completing it on the 360 first, I'd say it's one of those games where the modding community is so incredible that there is just no contest. Icenhancer alone makes the game into a completely different beast, not to mention that the native stability on it is incredible ever since the fix! Besides, if this is going to turn into a race of which platform most games run better in, it ends before it starts. Had this discussion before. Simply put GTA IV, before you add mods, out of the box/straight from steam, looks and runs like ass on the PC compared to the ps3/xbox. Rockstar made a poor attempt at it's conversion. The modding community 'fixed' it. Sorry to be offtopic but really that's all I have to say.
bob Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Obviously a high end PC is going to look and play better than a console running the same game (or modded version of it), but what i like about the console is that you know that you can buy the game, and play it when you get it home instantly, without faffing around, and as the console ages, the game is going to continue to play the same way. Plus for online games, you know that everyone is on the same playing field, with the same equipment (i don't really care so much about this, but it's an arguement i've heard). If i had a £1500 gaming pc, i would sure as hell play games on it (they are often cheaper than console games), but i do not, so it's a console for me! EDIT: I actually bought an Xbox because i couldn't play the game i bought on my laptop. I got Just Cause 2 off steam after playing the demo and loving it so much i bought the whole game. But after faffing for around 2 weeks trying to get it to a playable level on my laptop, i relented and went out and bought an Xbox and JC2 to play on it. Best £250 i ever spent.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 28, 2013 Author Posted March 28, 2013 Obviously a high end PC is going to look and play better than a console running the same game (or modded version of it), but what i like about the console is that you know that you can buy the game, and play it when you get it home instantly, without faffing around, and as the console ages, the game is going to continue to play the same way. Plus for online games, you know that everyone is on the same playing field, with the same equipment (i don't really care so much about this, but it's an arguement i've heard). If i had a £1500 gaming pc, i would sure as hell play games on it (they are often cheaper than console games), but i do not, so it's a console for me! EDIT: I actually bought an Xbox because i couldn't play the game i bought on my laptop. I got Just Cause 2 off steam after playing the demo and loving it so much i bought the whole game. But after faffing for around 2 weeks trying to get it to a playable level on my laptop, i relented and went out and bought an Xbox and JC2 to play on it. Best £250 i ever spent. The price thing is usually due to misinformation, if we're being honest. You can buy a PC that'll outperform the upcoming PS4 for 500£. My 1000€ PC runs everything (including Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3, which just came out) on ultra... You never need to go over 1000, and 500£ is usually more than enough to build yourself a very solid starter. a PC is more versatile, it lasts alot longer, stands the test of time, you can use pretty much any controller there is, it has the most games out of any platform and it runs them better. Plus, if you keep your GPU updated at all times, it's essentially plug & play. Don't get me wrong, I love me some consoles, but currently, I just use them for exclusives and that's pretty much it.
Grazza Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Lots of reasons, really. Price, convenience, simplicity. The cost of a good PC may or may not be exaggerated, but a console only costs about £150-200. Plus, I'm pretty sure you'd have to build your own to get good value, which not everyone knows how to do. Another reason is that PC games are so scaleable, all you're really getting is better graphics and games that run better, which I'm sure is nice, but I'm always happy with whatever graphical level has been set by Microsoft/Sony etc. All in all, gaming is just a hobby, and the PC requires just too much financial and intellectual investment than many of us want.
Cube Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 You also have to worry a bit more about performance for your particular set-up. For example, Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite have problems on nVidia graphics cards (luckily I have AMD, but there will likely be one the other way round). On a console you can generally rely on a certain standard for "big" releases in terms of smoothness and graphics. On a PC these can very depending on PC for game. For me, Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider run beautifully and look outstanding whereas others can be sluggish while also looking poor (such as The Witcher 2). This will vary for other people, so you really don't know until you play the game yourself.
Captain Falcon Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 You also have to worry a bit more about performance for your particular set-up. For example, Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite have problems on nVidia graphics cards (luckily I have AMD, but there will likely be one the other way round). On a console you can generally rely on a certain standard for "big" releases in terms of smoothness and graphics. On a PC these can very depending on PC for game. For me, Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider run beautifully and look outstanding whereas others can be sluggish while also looking poor (such as The Witcher 2). This will vary for other people, so you really don't know until you play the game yourself. That's always my biggest concern with regards to PC gaming. You just never know how well your machine will play something even if it's high spec. Working on the fixed hardware of a console, developers are under a greater obligation to get performance stable but with PC, there is a tendacy for them to expect the player to upgrade if their machine isn't good enough for their unoptomized code. As a general rule, I find anything done with UE3 works wonderfully and it's ability to scale nicely in favour of lower edge hardware has really helped those games reach wider audiences but their are some engines out their whose performance goes against the supposed standard requirements for gaming. Why can I play a game like Skyrim on higher settings than Oblivion and still get better all round performance? Likewise, I find Arkham City to play smoother than Deus Ex despite Deus Ex having lower requirements. Then it's case of what component do I need to buy to improve performance, what is holding me back... and it's not always the same thing depending on the game. Console have their limitations too but devs can't blame the game player for poor performance whereas that is always an option with PC gaming. Instead they have to make it work as best they can and not tell you to go out and buy a new machine. I'm looking into making PC gaming my home instead of consoles but I don't for a second believe there are no benefits to console gaming.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 It's not that there are no benefits to console gaming, it's just that this was a terrible gen for consoles when compared to PC. The PC has become an umbrella platform when before it just had a very limited amount of games. As of now it's clearly the frontrunner in terms of how many games you have access to. Apart from the PS3, this gen consoles were useless if you had a good PC. Multi-platforms usually perform better, you can use any controller you want, it's way more versatile than a console (especially if you have a HTPC), it has alot more games than any console and it even runs Wii games BETTER than the Wii itself(legally)... I'm just mad I didn't realize this before buying all 3 consoles. PC + PS3 would be pretty much all you need unless you were the biggest Halo/Gears Of War/Fable enthusiast ever. Did I mention that you also have backward compatibility with every single console that ever existed? Yeah, the DC and Saturn emus may suck, but I think getting to play pretty much any game ever is awesome, especially when apart from those 2 which are still lacking a decent emu there are near-flawless emulators that cover the entire history of gaming. Just the ability to play my favourite NGC or PS2 classics in 1080p is enough to make me cream, nevermind all the rest... Is it trickier than consoles to use? Sure. Less streamlined? Indeed! But it's also irrefutably better in 99% of the cases. Plus, gaming rigs are now cheaper than ever! And they're starting to actually look good too, if that's your thing (which is my case... and I love it that my PC is prettier than my 360/PS3). I don't know, personally it's game over for consoles. Never again will I buy any console until very late into it's lifespan, this obviously only applies if this modern trend of reinvigorating PC gaming remains... if it goes stale again, it's back to consoles in the blink of an eye, for me.
Jonnas Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I use my PC for various stuff, and other than gaming, I have no real reason to upgrade it, power-wise, other than buying a new PC once in a while. I also go by the policy of "get cheap games, not recent ones", so spending money just to upgrade the PC is out of the question. Consoles are easier to deal with, no need to install, check the specs, crossing fingers in hope it works, no unexpected bugs... Seeing as I want my hobbies to be stuff I can just relax with without stressing the small stuff too much, consoles are just generally better. (And that said, portable consoles are even better. No need to occupy a room or rearrange the shelf to fit it in.)
bob Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 unless you were the biggest Halo enthusiast ever. Ah well, that's me then. Probably half of all the games i own on the Xbox are Halo games, so that's the main reason i own one.
Sheikah Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) The price thing is usually due to misinformation, if we're being honest. You can buy a PC that'll outperform the upcoming PS4 for 500£. My 1000€ PC runs everything (including Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3, which just came out) on ultra... You never need to go over 1000, and 500£ is usually more than enough to build yourself a very solid starter. a PC is more versatile, it lasts alot longer, stands the test of time, you can use pretty much any controller there is, it has the most games out of any platform and it runs them better. Plus, if you keep your GPU updated at all times, it's essentially plug & play. Don't get me wrong, I love me some consoles, but currently, I just use them for exclusives and that's pretty much it. Thing is though, most good modern PC games make it to the PS3, but a lot of original PS3 games don't go to PC. I would argue the sheer quantity of PC games that don't go to consoles that you are referring to are not likely to bother people. If people really want it it will go to consoles, as that's where the money is. Also if we're being fair, a good PC with quality parts will run you at least £700 (mine was about £800), and then there's also the fact that a lot of PC titles aren't optimised well for HDTVs with shitty sized HUDs (Witcher 1+2 being prime examples, even with a custom patch). Sure you can build a PC for cheap to best the PS3 now, but the PS3 now sells for only £130 and includes a Blu Ray drive, something that costs £35-40 on its own. I can totally understand why people would opt for a console, even if within a few years there will be more affordable PC options that exceed them in performance. People are buying a system that will be cheaper, at least initially, with fully integrated and unified online features as well as exclusives and minimal hassle. Importantly as well you are looking at a minimum of 10 years value for the initial spend given the lack of need to upgrade anything. Edited March 30, 2013 by Sheikah
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 30, 2013 Author Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) I use my PC for various stuff, and other than gaming, I have no real reason to upgrade it, power-wise, other than buying a new PC once in a while. I also go by the policy of "get cheap games, not recent ones", so spending money just to upgrade the PC is out of the question. After the initial investment that was getting my current high end PC, I now have a new technique... ever since I bought the new one I've been saving 20€ every month in a special box. After 5 years that'll be 1200€, which is more than enough to either buy a new PC or inject some new life into your old (not that old, but 5 years is usually enough for it to need some work, and if that's not the case you just save the money for later or partially use it for something else. As for the whole "get cheap games, not recent ones" mentality, I'm exactly the same, and as far as that goes, no platform even comes close to the level of cheapness you get on PC. Unless you just need to have a physical copy for collecting purposes, of course. :P Consoles are easier to deal with, no need to install, check the specs, crossing fingers in hope it works, no unexpected bugs... Seeing as I want my hobbies to be stuff I can just relax with without stressing the small stuff too much, consoles are just generally better. True, they are simpler. Although in all honesty, if you do have a high end PC with updated drivers, it's also incredibly straightforward... and as for the install I'm gonna have to be the asshole here, but c'mon... (apart from the Wii which has no install) the consoles take even longer than the PCs to install, and you end up having to do it most of the time just to make the console acceptably quiet (360) or because you're forced to (PS3). I don't really see which part of going on steam and pressing install is that stressing... It's all about how you set it up... 80% of my pc gaming experience consists of picking up the 360 or the CCP, depending on game/mood, sitting on the couch and just playing. That's it... apart from some complicated older stuff (which are very few, nowadays), that's pretty much it. I just turn the controller on and that's it, I'm ready to play 1 second later. The whole "complicated" thing is completely blown out of proportion, it has become increasingly more intuitive as time has passed and it's now at a point where it's just not complicated at all anymore. (And that said, portable consoles are even better. No need to occupy a room or rearrange the shelf to fit it in.) As much as I love portable consoles, it always makes me incredibly sad/frustrated to see that their repertoires mostly consist of lesser entries in big franchises or remakes/ports. I mean, c'mon... Phantom Hourglass/Spirit Tracks? Metroid Prime Hunters? These aren't bad games, but they're the lowest common denominator among their respective series... And on the Sony side of things it's even worse... oO Of course, there's always those series whose portable entries are actually better than their home console counterparts like Fire Emblem, but sadly those are the minorities... and as much as I like quirky charming little games like Rythm Heaven, Phoenix Wright, Wario Ware, Loco Roco, Patapon or Professor Layton, it just doesn't feel the same as playing a "true" game. That said, I pretty much have every portable ever launched since the original Game Boy, except for the Neo Geo ones and the Vita (which I will buy as soon as it gets a price drop). Ah well, that's me then. Probably half of all the games i own on the Xbox are Halo games, so that's the main reason i own one. Yeah, I have 3 Halo games for my 360 too (3, ODST and Reach; 4 being a must buy as soon as I can get it for less than 15€), but it's hardly a franchise I couldn't live without... quite the contrary, actually. It's tight and precise, pretty and intense but too soulless for me to seriously get into and all things considered the only games that make me feel good about having bought a 360 are Lost Odyssey and Shadow Complex. They're the only exclusives that I can actually say I truly enjoyed. Actually, fuck everything about the 360 except the controller. It's loud, ugly, expensive (online) and it has a terribly poor exclusive list. Thing is though, most good modern PC games make it to the PS3, but a lot of original PS3 games don't go to PC. I would argue the sheer quantity of PC games that don't go to consoles that you are referring to are not likely to bother people. If people really want it it will go to consoles, as that's where the money is. Also if we're being fair, a good PC with quality parts will run you at least £700 (mine was about £800), and then there's also the fact that a lot of PC titles aren't optimised well for HDTVs with shitty sized HUDs (Witcher 1+2 being prime examples, even with a custom patch). Sure you can build a PC for cheap to best the PS3 now, but the PS3 now sells for only £130 and includes a Blu Ray drive, something that costs £35-40 on its own. I can totally understand why people would opt for a console, even if within a few years there will be more affordable PC options that exceed them in performance. People are buying a system that will be cheaper, at least initially, with fully integrated and unified online features as well as exclusives and minimal hassle. Importantly as well you are looking at a minimum of 10 years value for the initial spend given the lack of need to upgrade anything. I can understand why someone would opt for consoles too!! Hell, 2 years ago, I was that someone... I didn't want to have anything to do with PC gaming! And yes, 700+ would be where the sweet spot starts, but at 500£ you can already get one hell of a great starter which will pretty much be able to run everthing out there today competentely. Also, I'm with you 100% on the PS3. It's an awesome console whose exclusives more than justify it's purchase, even if I do absolutely hate the controller (and the new store, if I'm being honest). It's the only console out of last gen which I don't regret having bought, as it's the only one out of the 3 which my PC couldn't ridiculously outclass. There are simply too many great exclusives across a wide and varied range of genres which for now are completely out of the question on a PC. It stands alone as the only console this gen to accomplish such a feat. Had it retained the backwards compatibility of it's initial models and the other OS feature it would've been a damn near perfect console. Except for the atrocious DS3 which managed to achieve the miraculous feat of being worse than it's predecessor. Other than that it rocks. It looks decent, it has a great library, it's a Blu-Ray player, it's quiet, it has rechargable controller batteries and it's just extremely competent overall. It was an overpriced mess the first few years but it truly did come into it's own and ended up kicking some serious ass. I don't know about the 10 years thing, though... That seems a bit generous. Edit: I forgot about this: I would argue the sheer quantity of PC games that don't go to consoles that you are referring to are not likely to bother people. If people really want it it will go to consoles, as that's where the money is. That's not true. At all. Case in point, the most profitable games in the world are all PC exclusives except for Minecraft (which is both better and sells way more on the PC than it does on consoles) and COD. As far as profitability goes, nothing beats the PC. Console games generate more money initially, but the investment is also alot higher and the revenue has a very limited span. Compared to stuff like WoW which has generated over 10 billion USD over the last 9 years or long lasting phenomenons like LoL (which is now the most played game in the world for almost a year, btw) DotA and HoN, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft 2, newcomer Guild Wars 2 or even Counter Strike (yes, it's still incredibly popular), which are perfect examples of games that just keep on giving and never stop being profitable while having a much lower cost on the distribution side of things. These are also mostly games that the consoles cannot and will not handle. Also, it just ain't acceptable to completely brush of a whole plethora of amazing games like Company of Heroes, Dawn Of War, Stalker, the Civ games, the Total War games, Starcraft 2 (again), Crysis or The Witcher because the console crowd is too lazy to push their comfort zone. Not to mention indie hits like Dear Esther, Amnesia, Thomas Was Alone, Mount & Blade, Dustforce, Lone Survivor, Osmos, etc etc etc. The list just never ends. If you don't care about it, you don't care about gaming. (Which in this case isn't true, as I'm asking the N-E community, which I know to be a community which cares about gaming and whose PC gaming user base is quite short.) Edited March 30, 2013 by Oxigen_Waste
Cube Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (and the new store, if I'm being honest). https://store.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/ The web store works pretty well (oddly, Microsoft had a really good web-based store, but a redesign of their website completely messed up the search, making it impossible to find anything). Company of Heroes, Dawn Of War, Stalker, the Civ games, the Total War games, Starcraft 2 (again), Crysis or The Witcher because the console crowd is too lazy to push their comfort zone. Not to mention indie hits like Dear Esther, Amnesia, Thomas Was Alone, Mount & Blade, Dustforce, Lone Survivor, Osmos, etc etc etc. The list just never ends. If you don't care about it, you don't care about gaming. Some people just aren't interested in games like that. I even own some of those game (Company of Heroes, Dawn Of War, Amnesia, Dustforce, Osmos - All from Humble Bundles) and I have little interest in playing any because they simply don't appeal to me. (Actually, I've played Osmos, it's a good little tablet game, but nothing more than that) Also, what made the Dear Esther remake so good? The original was terrible.
Sheikah Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 After the initial investment that was getting my current high end PC, I now have a new technique... ever since I bought the new one I've been saving 20€ every month in a special box. After 5 years that'll be 1200€, which is more than enough to either buy a new PC or inject some new life into your old (not that old, but 5 years is usually enough for it to need some work, and if that's not the case you just save the money for later or partially use it for something else. As for the whole "get cheap games, not recent ones" mentality, I'm exactly the same, and as far as that goes, no platform even comes close to the level of cheapness you get on PC. Unless you just need to have a physical copy for collecting purposes, of course. :P True, they are simpler. Although in all honesty, if you do have a high end PC with updated drivers, it's also incredibly straightforward... and as for the install I'm gonna have to be the asshole here, but c'mon... (apart from the Wii which has no install) the consoles take even longer than the PCs to install, and you end up having to do it most of the time just to make the console acceptably quiet (360) or because you're forced to (PS3). I don't really see which part of going on steam and pressing install is that stressing... It's all about how you set it up... 80% of my pc gaming experience consists of picking up the 360 or the CCP, depending on game/mood, sitting on the couch and just playing. That's it... apart from some complicated older stuff (which are very few, nowadays), that's pretty much it. I just turn the controller on and that's it, I'm ready to play 1 second later. The whole "complicated" thing is completely blown out of proportion, it has become increasingly more intuitive as time has passed and it's now at a point where it's just not complicated at all anymore. As much as I love portable consoles, it always makes me incredibly sad/frustrated to see that their repertoires mostly consist of lesser entries in big franchises or remakes/ports. I mean, c'mon... Phantom Hourglass/Spirit Tracks? Metroid Prime Hunters? These aren't bad games, but they're the lowest common denominator among their respective series... And on the Sony side of things it's even worse... oO Of course, there's always those series whose portable entries are actually better than their home console counterparts like Fire Emblem, but sadly those are the minorities... and as much as I like quirky charming little games like Rythm Heaven, Phoenix Wright, Wario Ware, Loco Roco, Patapon or Professor Layton, it just doesn't feel the same as playing a "true" game. That said, I pretty much have every portable ever launched since the original Game Boy, except for the Neo Geo ones and the Vita (which I will buy as soon as it gets a price drop). Yeah, I have 3 Halo games for my 360 too (3, ODST and Reach; 4 being a must buy as soon as I can get it for less than 15€), but it's hardly a franchise I couldn't live without... quite the contrary, actually. It's tight and precise, pretty and intense but too soulless for me to seriously get into and all things considered the only games that make me feel good about having bought a 360 are Lost Odyssey and Shadow Complex. They're the only exclusives that I can actually say I truly enjoyed. Actually, fuck everything about the 360 except the controller. It's loud, ugly, expensive (online) and it has a terribly poor exclusive list. I can understand why someone would opt for consoles too!! Hell, 2 years ago, I was that someone... I didn't want to have anything to do with PC gaming! And yes, 700+ would be where the sweet spot starts, but at 500£ you can already get one hell of a great starter which will pretty much be able to run everthing out there today competentely. Also, I'm with you 100% on the PS3. It's an awesome console whose exclusives more than justify it's purchase, even if I do absolutely hate the controller (and the new store, if I'm being honest). It's the only console out of last gen which I don't regret having bought, as it's the only one out of the 3 which my PC couldn't ridiculously outclass. There are simply too many great exclusives across a wide and varied range of genres which for now are completely out of the question on a PC. It stands alone as the only console this gen to accomplish such a feat. Had it retained the backwards compatibility of it's initial models and the other OS feature it would've been a damn near perfect console. Except for the atrocious DS3 which managed to achieve the miraculous feat of being worse than it's predecessor. Other than that it rocks. It looks decent, it has a great library, it's a Blu-Ray player, it's quiet, it has rechargable controller batteries and it's just extremely competent overall. It was an overpriced mess the first few years but it truly did come into it's own and ended up kicking some serious ass. I don't know about the 10 years thing, though... That seems a bit generous. Edit: I forgot about this: That's not true. At all. Case in point, the most profitable games in the world are all PC exclusives except for Minecraft (which is both better and sells way more on the PC than it does on consoles) and COD. As far as profitability goes, nothing beats the PC. Console games generate more money initially, but the investment is also alot higher and the revenue has a very limited span. Compared to stuff like WoW which has generated over 10 billion USD over the last 9 years or long lasting phenomenons like LoL (which is now the most played game in the world for almost a year, btw) DotA and HoN, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft 2, newcomer Guild Wars 2 or even Counter Strike (yes, it's still incredibly popular), which are perfect examples of games that just keep on giving and never stop being profitable while having a much lower cost on the distribution side of things. These are also mostly games that the consoles cannot and will not handle. Also, it just ain't acceptable to completely brush of a whole plethora of amazing games like Company of Heroes, Dawn Of War, Stalker, the Civ games, the Total War games, Starcraft 2 (again), Crysis or The Witcher because the console crowd is too lazy to push their comfort zone. Not to mention indie hits like Dear Esther, Amnesia, Thomas Was Alone, Mount & Blade, Dustforce, Lone Survivor, Osmos, etc etc etc. The list just never ends. If you don't care about it, you don't care about gaming. (Which in this case isn't true, as I'm asking the N-E community, which I know to be a community which cares about gaming and whose PC gaming user base is quite short.) Those profitable games you mention, a lot of them have a subscription. They're mostly profitable because each individual pays an exorbitant sum over their playing life relative to the cost of people buying only the game on consoles. It's not like they have the majority of gamers worldwide playing them. Most people don't want to play MMORPGs, let's be honest. Even though they globally have a lot of players, there's no doubt that overall in Europe most money in gaming is spent on consoles and handhelds relative to PC gaming. One need only look at the charts. It's more all eggs in one basket when you look at MMORPGs - lots of players divided between a few top long-running titles, relative to console gaming which has millions forking over cash for sequels released every 1-2 years. Game devs make their money in different ways here, and I'd still definitely say there's more money to be made in console gaming. Plus, I'd imagine quite a number of PC gamers have a console, but I don't think anywhere near as many console gamers have a proper gaming rig PC.
ReZourceman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 The price thing is usually due to misinformation, if we're being honest. You are consistently the most ridiculous person on the planet, if we're being honest.
pratty Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Personally I prefer the relative simplicity of consoles. Though I might be tempted to buy a gaming PC when I can legally play Nintendo games on them. I keep hearing from PC guys that I should ditch consoles for a gaming PC, because you can play games cheaper and in full 1080p and 60 fps and all that. And yet, if you only gamed on a PC this gen you'd have missed out on the likes of: God Of War, Uncharted, KillZone, Little Big Planet, Demon Souls, InFamous, Yazuza, MGS4, Resistance, Heavy Rain, Journey, Valkyria Chronicles, 3D Dot Game Heroes, Vanquish, Bayonetta, FF13, Super Mario Galaxy, NSMBWii, Skyward Sword, No More Heroes, Monster Hunter Tri, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Super Smash Bros Brawl, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Metroid Prime 3, Metroid: Other M, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower, Xenoblade, Sonic Colours, Mario Kart Wii, Wii Sports Resort, Little Kings Story, Sin and Punishment, Goldeneye 007, and many more. And that's not even mentioning handhelds. I don't doubt PC gaming has a lot going for it, but I wouldn't just turn my back on all the great Nintendo exclusive games just for the advantage of being able to play other games cheaply and at high specs.
Recommended Posts