Is PC Gaming really worth all the money?

A question i find myself asking alot latly. But it's true! Most if not all PC games tend to be poorly optimized these days. Making having the hardware to run them pointless because they won't run well anyway to begin with. Resident Evil 5 has been the only good looking PC game ive played in years that runs Flawlessly maxed out. Ive never seen the framerate dip below 55fps.

And you have company's doing crappy ports which is killing alot of games. Yes you have games like Command & Conquer that are ment to be played on the PC but it seems developers are spending less time on making good PC games.

Anyone agree?

Nope I don't really agree, because mostly I don't care about every pos that gets ported to PC and I only get good games. I still have an 8800GT and it still maxes games at 1680x1050 with some AA (not all of them but most), I wanted to get a new card but not this series, next year when the GTX500 series is released and yes I doubt I'll have problems playing the games that I will get (if the GTX500 will be like 7vs8, because GTX480 is too hot and needs too much power, if not...I will....go to ATI :S).

Out of all the games I bought in these "multiplatform" years, I only have 3 that caused problems, SR 2 which works but it's badly optimized, GTA IV which runs great if you have at least 1 gig of VRAM recommended is 2 gigs and BC 2, almost all EA ports are great, but DICE blew it with this game and with every patch it gets worse, a lot worse, I currently can't even play it because I get a PC freeze after 20 minutes, but DICE cares actually, there were a lot of people that couldn't play it because of freezes before the latest patch but now even more can't play it, they really support the community, they don't want just a few to be sad they want the whole community to be so.

It's true that a number of PC games have had subpar ports, but the average system requirements aren't particularly high for most games. PC hardware is cheaper than it used to be, and games are cheaper than their console counterparts (this is changing with the advent of $60 games, but with a little patience PC gamers can pick up new games for much cheaper thanks to the constant deals and sales on Steam/D2D).

So I think PC gaming is affordable -- though not necessarily a better investment than a 360 or PS3, unless someone's a big strategy game fan or must have the best graphics possible.

Well I find it worth it in the sense that you might aswell have a custom gaming PC. If parts die in a typical (Dell, Compaq, HP) computer then you gotta go get a new computer. At least with a custom you'll save some money being able to replace individual parts and possibly buy something better.

It's definitely worth it, if you have the money to keep up with it. I started 1999 and i don't see myself quitting any time soon. A little advice, learn to build your computer and do it, you will save a lot of $$$ and you will know exactly what you're putting inside your PC.

Yes and it seems alot of PC titles are comming or have been made for consoles, Thief, Command & Conquer, AVP, Half life, Battlefield. Just to name a few games or game series that where PC only.

Although i do agree that Battlefield BC2 is pretty good, abit maby on the performance side not 100% but it still runs well.

it's very simple, if you don't think it's worth the money, just move over to consoles, if you haven't already.

PC gaming only costs a bit more than console gaming in the short-term and has a far larger and more variable library of games, so I would say that it is the platform which is the most worth its price.

I feel it is worth it. As Remmib already stated, I would probably have a PC regardless of whether or not I was gaming on it.

Having now massed over 100 PC games, with each costing approx. £10 less than a console game at retail (and excluding steam sales), I'm £1000 better off.

As for ports. There not all as bad as they are made out to be.

Most pc games are not optimzed bad... BAD ports are usually optimized bad.

Games made just for pc most the time run very well.

And as a gamer who plays both pc and consoles, PC gaming is cheaper in the long run to me. (

Bad news is always bigger than good news. Think of it this way, you don't see many stories or posts about good ports - which, given only a handful of games seem to be defined as bad, must mean that the majority of multiplatforms must be at least acceptably optimised for the PC. Of course, it's a shame when it's the big releases that screw it up :S .

For me, the PC is better. I prefer the control style and the range of games available - While I'm not as big a RTS or Sim player as I used to be, I still like these games (Roll on SC2 \o\).

Poorly ported titles aren't a new problem; They've plagued PC gaming all the way. There are still a myriad of titles which remain better to play on the PC (Mass Effect for instance; Well done Demiurge Studios).

As for worth the money, these days PC games are cheaper on release day than the exact same game on a console. Plus, it is still easily the most economical gaming solution; you avoid spending however much on a console, when you already need a PC for work/internet.

A question i find myself asking alot latly. But it's true! Most if not all PC games tend to be poorly optimized these days. Making having the hardware to run them pointless because they won't run well anyway to begin with. Resident Evil 5 has been the only good looking PC game ive played in years that runs Flawlessly maxed out. Ive never seen the framerate dip below 55fps.

And you have company's doing crappy ports which is killing alot of games. Yes you have games like Command & Conquer that are ment to be played on the PC but it seems developers are spending less time on making good PC games.

Anyone agree?

thingta42

I find that most of console games looks miserable in my 46" 1080p Panny, whereas the framerrate, resolution, fx, wireframe, post process detail in my PC games are steps above the overall quality in console gaming. This, plus the lacks in k+m support in consoles (I'm mainly a mp fps and rets player) kills the interest in console gaming to me. The only way to reach the features I want in current gaming is to spent in PC hardware, which is fine to me.

as others stated, from a cost benefit, point of view PC gaming really aint that expencive, pretty much everyone needs a pc anyway for daily work, so its just to add 200 bucks to the wad, and buy a pc that plays games too ^^ (usually its just a put that is needed).

Anyways, the quality of games? well, Ive found quite a few games this gen that I consider to be really good pc games, but yeah, activision and Ubisoft (the pubs) are obviously not carring about pc gaming.

So its 2 manjr devs that generally dont care.

The rest of the devs, and alot of pubs are doing a good job as usual. I will have to admit tho, that some games are really badly optimized in general, not just on PC but Ive seen more then my share of console games likely reaching a 1 digit fps count from time to time...

So if devs just became worse, or it is the whole "pushing the games out the door before they are finished" is up in the air.

it sure is, and there is alot of misinformation going around. Anyone who says pretty much all pc games are unoptimized is either a troll or clueless. There are almost no games that run at a framerate of 30 fps or over constantly on console, even big name games like gears of war and halo have framerate drops. The only way I can understand someone going for a console is if you have no idea how to use a computer beyond surfing the web.

The only way I can understand someone going for a console is if you have no idea how to use a computer beyond surfing the web.

TerrorRizzing

PCs have an image issue. A decent gaming PC is still more expensive than a console, and does require a bit more love and attention than a 360 or PS3. The consoles have marketing and a whole image to buy into that is pretty enticing. Consoles are more social (multiple controllers) and usually get put in the living room - PCs generally lack both of these things.

We've got "I'm a PC and...". Or a 5 year old taking pictures.

Plus, people are impatient. They want it awesome and they want it NOW. PCs usually involve waiting longer than a console (not necessarily in the long run, but where it "counts" - start up and installation).

The PC is the geek in the maths class - bad image, excellent results, not popular; the consoles are the jocks in that class - good image, mediocre results, popular. Numbers don't always count...

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"] The only way I can understand someone going for a console is if you have no idea how to use a computer beyond surfing the web.

LordRork

PCs have an image issue. A decent gaming PC is still more expensive than a console, and does require a bit more love and attention than a 360 or PS3. The consoles have marketing and a whole image to buy into that is pretty enticing. Consoles are more social (multiple controllers) and usually get put in the living room - PCs generally lack both of these things.

We've got "I'm a PC and...". Or a 5 year old taking pictures.

Plus, people are impatient. They want it awesome and they want it NOW. PCs usually involve waiting longer than a console (not necessarily in the long run, but where it "counts" - start up and installation).

The PC is the geek in the maths class - bad image, excellent results, not popular; the consoles are the jocks in that class - good image, mediocre results, popular. Numbers don't always count...

i have spend 1289 euro's (lets make it 1800 dollars) on my pc when i build it, it was aug 2008

I can still max out any game with no problems (yes max AA) except for Arma 2 and (yes what else) GTA IV.

So i think the price/quality is the same as with consoles.

yes.

i spent a 1000 dollars on a really nice computer. it has lasted me for a year and a half and i expect it to last me for just as long.

the games i play are all maxed out on graphics.

however, the important part is that pc games themselves are typically a lot better than the games on consoles.

The PC is the geek in the maths class - bad image, excellent results, not popular; the consoles are the jocks in that class - good image, mediocre results, popular. Numbers don't always count...LordRork

It's worth it if the games you want are in it. I like flight sims. That genre is pretty much a PC exclusive. That alone makes it worth it for me.

As for image... It doesn't bother me what image being a PC gamer projects. But if anyone cares, most of those I game with outside of relatives or in-laws are professionals, be it pilot, aircrew, aircraft mechanic, or weather forecaster. We all game on the PC because we have a love for flight sims. It's our KIDS who game on consoles. I do join in and play Animal Crossing/Super Smash Bros/GT5 Prologue once in a while with my daughter. But, the PC is still my primary platform for gaming until at least flight sims (real ones, not the ones with arcade physics) make it over to consoles. Perhaps next-gen.

Well for me I'm through with PC, this month is my last upgrade. I can't hardly keep up with the constant demand on PC gaming, I ain't rich you know. maybe I'll get a console next year and maybe not...I'll just go fishing or play basketball

A question i find myself asking alot latly. But it's true! Most if not all PC games tend to be poorly optimized these days. Making having the hardware to run them pointless because they won't run well anyway to begin with. Resident Evil 5 has been the only good looking PC game ive played in years that runs Flawlessly maxed out. Ive never seen the framerate dip below 55fps.

And you have company's doing crappy ports which is killing alot of games. Yes you have games like Command & Conquer that are ment to be played on the PC but it seems developers are spending less time on making good PC games.

Anyone agree?

thingta42

There seem to be a lot of post like this going around. However I think a glaring flaw in the logic here is that it just seems to focus on graphics and on games that are available on both the consoles and on the PC.

Sure the PC can handle better graphics than the console, but yeah it costs a bit more. However the real benefit of the PC is not the graphics, it's the diversity in titles, it's the HUGE black catalogue of games, it the ability to do more than play games and watch movies, it's the ability to build the machines to your needs and specifications instead of MS or Sony's preferences, it's being able to do your work (or home work) on the machine and so on.

If all you're looking for is the type of games that are popular on the consoles, the consoles might be a better firm, there's nothing wrong in this, and sure you might have a $100, but you'll also be limiting yourself in terms of your gaming. To hell with what looks and performs better, the reason why I prefer PC gaming is because it plays better, offers more diversity and has more original and interesting games.

Well for me I'm through with PC, this month is my last upgrade. I can't hardly keep up with the constant demand on PC gaming, I ain't rich you know. maybe I'll get a console next year and maybe not...I'll just go fishing or play basketball

venjhammet

you actually upgrade on a regular basis? You should be able to run just fine with a 2-3 year old graphics card and CPU.

[QUOTE="venjhammet"]

Well for me I'm through with PC, this month is my last upgrade. I can't hardly keep up with the constant demand on PC gaming, I ain't rich you know. maybe I'll get a console next year and maybe not...I'll just go fishing or play basketball

Mazoch

you actually upgrade on a regular basis? You should be able to run just fine with a 2-3 year old graphics card and CPU.

I wouldn't neccessarily say a "low budget developer" results in high demanding games. Infact 90% of those developers develop games that run on low end systems. Examples would include

• Sidhe Interactive
• Cold Beam Games
• beatnik games
• Nadeo
• frozenbyte
• blendo games

You must remember that the majority of what is considered "low budget developers" fall within the indie developers. If anything you have more folks like gas powered games who to compensate for releases on console, dum down the graphics of PC (supreme commander 2). What I do see is port overs allowing for super low end systems to still enjoy playing on PC. I was shocked to see my friends old P4 3.0 ghz hyperthreaded and 9600 gso play gta 4 and bad company 2 (still shocked how well bad company 2 ran on his system).

What I personally see is that most of the bad ports are coming from ubisoft. Yes we have had alot of really bad ports from other companies but many companies have improved greatly in delivering a good game experience. Games under the EA banner as of late such as dragon age, bad company 2, and mass effect 2 have shown that PC games can be done well on PC and actually show case features not found on console (dx10, camera views, bigger game depth etc).

But its a 2 edge sword. Look at Just Cause 2. For all intents and purposes its not a pc port. But by saying that, they decided to take away from the amount of Pc users by making a game thats dx9 on consoles but dx 10 only on PC (still doesn't make alot of sense to me).

For me personally, you just can't beat the price to performance going PC to console. I have built my computer at the same time the 360 released and even after slowly upgrading all my components in the years since (and selling old on ebay) I have come out big in the green compared to my friends who bought there consoles on release. Yes, Pc gaming would cost 1000's of dollars if you are a deep gaming enthusiast (high end gamer) but for mid rangers life myself 500-600 dollars for a system that on 19-22 inch monitors will run great is enough for me. That has kinda been the problem with the port overs. Its nice that lower systems can enjoy the games at such great framerates and graphics but now games have not evolved with computer hardware. We have been years into quads+ but very few really push the requirements to have a quad and don't even get me on i7's or the 6 core phenoms. DX10 has been pushed to the side as consoles are still dx9 thus majority of games run dx9 with eye candy ability for dx10. I mean we have the first games like shadowgrounds that was dx10 exclusive and not till late with shattered horizon and just cause 2 has there been a need for dx10 or 11.

All in all though, PC gaming is definitely the money. The back catalogue of games is great. The gaming community goes years longer then consoles. I mean dang cs source, and cs 1.6 still has a huge community considering how old the game is. On consoles, all i really see is good console games been swept under the rug by players as they only wanna play the newest and greatest games. Months after release, many of there communities severely die off. Let us not forget the PC mod community (though some companies are not releasing mod tools). I mean look at starcraft2 . Months before the game is even released, there is a thriving mod tool community on maps etc (a player just made a tetris clone as a stage where the blocks are supply depots lol). Even some port overs greatly benefit such as fallout 3 and my fav need for speed shift. What many reviewers marked down on points are fixed in mods. With all that said, pc gaming is so worth the investment.

For me, PC gaming was always about it's incredible backlog/library of games. I've been PC gaming since 2004 and still haven't played through every game I wanted to finish. Mods are great and Mouse and Keyboard controls never get old. I spent only $700 on my PC last year and it runs EVERY game quite well.

From the above post the only valid point was that they break down to easily and laggy online. Sadly i own a ps3 and its doing pretty well so far. I cant comment about the x360 that gets red rings all the time though. Also i only play singleplayer on ps3, i have yet to find a game with mp that is worth playing. The "low framerates" you are reffering are fine for most gamers, they are not that low. As for the expensive factor? Why because they are 10 bucks more? Big deal ubisoft and activision have already fixed that :P As for biased reviewers and games being unoriginal and too easy...thats a common problem in gaming, it does not fit only in console gaming. But as you see i choose not to complain about common facts.dakan45

For some the grass is always greener on the other side.

It's worth it if the games you want are in it. I like flight sims. That genre is pretty much a PC exclusive. That alone makes it worth it for me.

As for image... It doesn't bother me what image being a PC gamer projects. But if anyone cares, most of those I game with outside of relatives or in-laws are professionals, be it pilot, aircrew, aircraft mechanic, or weather forecaster. We all game on the PC because we have a love for flight sims. It's our KIDS who game on consoles. I do join in and play Animal Crossing/Super Smash Bros/GT5 Prologue once in a while with my daughter. But, the PC is still my primary platform for gaming until at least flight sims (real ones, not the ones with arcade physics) make it over to consoles. Perhaps next-gen.

jun_aka_pekto

So jun, do you fly for real? cause it seems its one of your passions?

This may sound crazy, but learning to use a computer is actully a skill. Not many applications I have applied for asking do you have console gaming skills. Plenty have do you have computer skills.fireforge_basic

It it worth it? To do it right you need to spend a lot of cash. Yes you get some nicer graphics, but most of the games play exactly the same as their console counterparts, so the actual gaming experience is the same and cheaper on a console. Dirt 2, Grid, Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 2, CODMW2, Battlefield BC2, etc, etc, are all the same game no matter where you play it. Is spending $1000 worth some higher resolution graphics? That's up to you. I have a decent PC and i do enjoy it, but i am realistic about it...it was too expensive just for the sake of making a few games look a little better.

This may sound crazy, but learning to use a computer is actully a skill. Not many applications I have applied for asking do you have console gaming skills. Plenty have do you have computer skills.fireforge_basic

I only spent $200 on my PC and it runs most games pretty smooth. I stay because there might be some awesome exclusives coming in a few years.