Why is PC gaming not as big as it once was?

[BumbleBee]

my job in the resistance would be to feed Mailman belts of ammo and doing Arnold impersonations "go back to Mars!"

 

[TheMailMan78]

my job in the resistance would be to feed Mailman belts of ammo and doing Arnold impersonations "go back to Mars!"

In a skimpy outfit I assume? Because that would be WIN!

 

[BumbleBee]

if years of playing counter-strike taught me anything it's ALWAYS BE WEARING STILETTOS

 

[Frizz]

yeah... but with the console you don't need to upgrade parts... it will last for more than 5years.

Thus the reason why I feel like I've traveled back in time when I play games on my PS3 . Don't get me wrong though I love my PS3 but my PC comes first .

 

[RoutedScripter]

you all should watch this video on 46 minute http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEyxxpNQFIk

still i am not "defending" the consoles with this --- it just gives you how a good developers should treat the 2 different markets and hopefully in good co-existance. There is no doubt that Consoles simply aren't meant to be hardcore competitive gaming machines - it's all PC.



the guy that asked the question is Dave Oshry

 

[eidairaman1]

Irony has it aswell that Emulation of Old games is better on PC than consoles

 

[BumbleBee]

Irony has it aswell that Emulation of Old games is better on PC than consoles

retro gamers don't use emulators.

 

[Shihab]

retro gamers don't use emulators.

No, they wear their jelly shoes and play Sonic on their Sega Genesis.

 

[eidairaman1]

retro gamers don't use emulators.

reason i use emulators is cuz i own the original games n i cant take all my old toys with me being military, so the Laptop and PC do the same only better than the newer consoles at playing older games

 

[BumbleBee]

No, they wear their jelly shoes and play Sonic on their Sega Genesis.

 

[Shihab]

I'd rather have one of these

 

[SkullFox]

by millions you mean Korea no it's not.

well, I have SC2 and I have the north american version, and I entered online and there were about 2M online... so you have 2M online in the NA servers, and lets say 1.5M on the EU servers and about 4-5M in the Asian servers, I would say that's quite a lot of them...

you certainly do need to upgrade. you need to replace the whole damn thing.

lets say you're a console gamer, and lets assume they do last 5 years - which isnt the case.

Why do I need to replace the whole damn thing?
I still have the first version of the PS3, the one with card readers, and it is running nicely and I got it in 2007. I still have one of the controllers that came with it.

even if we stick with current gen, if you wanted accesss to all the current console games you'd need:

360 (with hard drive, not the 4GB model)
PS3
Wii

(and if we count portable:
PSP
nintendo 3DS)

Don't need access to all the games, just the ones I like. Don't care about portable(also you can't really compare them with a pc).

each of them requiring their own unique hardware accesories - controllers, cables and so on, often costing more than the console itself.

Normally they come with the consoles themselves...

you may not need to upgrade the parts inside the console, but theres dozens of external accesories you need (Xbox 360 w/ hard drive, 4 controllers, kinect, headset, etc) that you're sure as hell upgrading along the way.

why do you need 4 controllers?
did you say Kinect? do you have something like that on the PC, I think not...
Headset? I don't use one and if you have a pc you will have to buy an headset as well...

Ok let's say you purchase a computer. Didn't go all out for this pc ($500), dual x16 slots 8GB ram quad core and everything. 5 years comes, cpu is still going strong but you want to play the latest titles, $200 gets spent for a video card.

if you want to purchase a computer that will do 1080P on all games available right now and nice Frames Per Second you would spend:

200USD - CPU
150USD - MOBO
100USD - RAM
300USD - Graphics
+ HDD
+ PSU
+ Case
+ Keyboard
+ DVDrom
+ Mouse

and after 2-3 year you will have to upgrade Graphics at least...

Thus the reason why I feel like I've traveled back in time when I play games on my PS3 . Don't get me wrong though I love my PS3 but my PC comes first .

my PC comes first as well... But when I play MGS4 or GT5 I don't feel that I traveled back in time...

 

[1Kurgan1]

if you want to purchase a computer that will do 1080P on all games available right now and nice Frames Per Second you would spend:

200USD - CPU
150USD - MOBO
100USD - RAM
300USD - Graphics
+ HDD
+ PSU
+ Case
+ Keyboard
+ DVDrom
+ Mouse

and after 2-3 year you will have to upgrade Graphics at least...

Don't agree at all, I bought my PII 1055t the day it came out for $150 and I don't have an issue with any game out there. I bought my 6950 for $280. I don't know much about Intel, with AMD you could easily get away with a 785G for well under $100, and you can also get 4GB of DDR3 1600 for like $30 - $40 for a pair thats got decent reviews. That setup would be way under oyur figure of cost and play things fantastically.

Either way, with your list of prices it looks like you are looking to build a PC to play things maxed out on the cheap, which you intend to compare to consoles that play things on far less than maximum settings. which makes no sense in my mind. You could easily go with a sub-$100 Quad, a 1GB 6950 ($240), 785G $70ish, 4GB DDR3 ($35ish). I honestly think in the end you could end up around $550 with a solid build, and with that 6950 1GB still play most things maxed, if you cut the cost and went with a cheaper vid card to play things on medium you might make it in under $500.

 

[BumbleBee]

you don't have to buy the XBOX 360 250GB bundle for $299.

XBOX 360 4GB bundle is only $199. you can buy a third-party hard drive (60, 120 or 250GB) for less than $45 on Amazon.

Sony dropped the PS3 160GB bundle to $249 a couple weeks ago.

 

[SkullFox]

Don't agree at all, I bought my PII 1055t the day it came out for $150 and I don't have an issue with any game out there. I bought my 6950 for $280. I don't know much about Intel, with AMD you could easily get away with a 785G for well under $100, and you can also get 4GB of DDR3 1600 for like $30 - $40 for a pair thats got decent reviews. That setup would be way under oyur figure of cost and play things fantastically.

Either way, with your list of prices it looks like you are looking to build a PC to play things maxed out on the cheap, which you intend to compare to consoles that play things on far less than maximum settings. which makes no sense in my mind. You could easily go with a sub-$100 Quad, a 1GB 6950 ($240), 785G $70ish, 4GB DDR3 ($35ish). I honestly think in the end you could end up around $550 with a solid build, and with that 6950 1GB still play most things maxed, if you cut the cost and went with a cheaper vid card to play things on medium you might make it in under $500.

I was making a PC to play in the same resolution as the HD consoles, but, maybe you can make a PC with 500USD, but, that is already 2 times more than the 160Gb PS3. Not to mention that next year you would have to make an upgrade to play the next Crysis/GTA/whatever.

 

[1Kurgan1]

I was making a PC to play in the same resolution as the HD consoles, but, maybe you can make a PC with 500USD, but, that is already 2 times more than the 160Gb PS3. Not to mention that next year you would have to make an upgrade to play the next Crysis/GTA/whatever.

The PC prices you listed were for higher end hardware that would far out perform consoles. To play at console settings on a PC, you would be playing at low/medium settings, you could get away with a dual core and a $120 videocard. Could go much cheaper than $500 if you want to play at exact console settings, and the PC is not just a gaming platform, it's more than that. Plus count in the price of your TV vs the price of a monitor to see how it really balances out. Or $60 per game, and a market where game price doesn't drop as fast. Good example is BC2 can be picked up for $5 consistently, used on consoles, probably much more, and you have to then buy a $10 map pack addon.

You are comparing apples to oranges, or a kitchen knife to a swiss army knife, and then on top of that you are trying to pick hardware to play games at close to max settings and 60 fps, when consoles play at close to low settings and are capped at 30fps usually (and many only play at 720p). Not a great comparison.

 

[Frizz]

I was making a PC to play in the same resolution as the HD consoles, but, maybe you can make a PC with 500USD, but, that is already 2 times more than the 160Gb PS3. Not to mention that next year you would have to make an upgrade to play the next Crysis/GTA/whatever.

Don't forget a PC isn't only used for games, the hardware you buy will compliment everything else you do as well eg. video/music encoding and all that jazz, it maybe twice the price but it's potentially also cheaper than the XBOX360 and PS3 in their first year of launch which means it is affordable. You get what you pay for either way. I am assuming a $500 USD PC will still be able to melt people's brains with BF3 and it's awesome graphics.

 

[Mussels]

SkullFox: you have to replace the whole thing, because when the next gen consoles (or even another 'brands') comes out, you cant play any of them.

PS4 comes out? new console, controllers, accesories, games, and so on. the same is not true for PC.

 

[BumbleBee]

it's not about the systems! it's about the games...

 

[Mussels]

it's not about the systems it's about the games...

and those are restricted to specific systems, was my point. once those systems are outdated, you lose those games unless you maintain a collection of games consoles and accesories.

 

[digibucc]

he's said it a few different ways, and is obviously right.

as for your prices and estimations skullfox, you're way off. your argument would hold more weight with accurate numbers. still though, there's really no contest imo.

 

[BumbleBee]

you know what this forum needs? a Mortal Kombat scrub league. very therapeutic..

 

[1Kurgan1]

it's not about the systems! it's about the games...

We already went over that though. Consoles get some FPS games, some platform games, but honestly, almost all 360 exclusives make it to PC, so most of the only exclusives to talk about are on PS3, or very few I would personally be interested in on Wii (maybe none?). Where as PC's get MMO's (one of the most popular genre's in the last few years, most RTS titles, the best Racing sims (actually the best sims overall for any type), the best Indie games (and the most). So honestly I would still see that as a win in the PC column.

But it's not about games, or the systems. It's about everything as a whole, which is why we have talked about numerous subjects.

 

[Mussels]

all the big console exclusives tend to be from genres done to death on PC anyway - oh look, another generic FPS shooter!


the real reason they dont come to PC is because they'd suck. consoles have a limited amount of games on them, so 'the best PS3 shooter' is out of a dozen titles or so... but when you compare it to the hundreds on PC, they fall short of what consumers think a AAA game SHOULD be.


maybe thats the problem - PC gamers just have higher standards, since we've got so much more freedom of choice.

 

[techtard]

That, and we're the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race.
Of course we'd have higher standards than the dirty, unwashed masses of console peasants!