GT3 is anything but casual game. And Sims sold more than any of those you've mentioned. True casuals play ONLY on Pc, it's a known fact. a 40years old housewive will never play on a console, but she regulary plays bejeweled or sims on her pcThen exactly how many did it sell? 20 million? Unless you have a solid number, I still say GT3 sold more (the 14 million is a solid number from NPD), and many people bought PS2's just for that game (PS2 sales surged when the game first came out).
AdrianWerner
A few truths about PC gaming.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]
So you can buy a PC that is future-resistant for at least five years (able to run any upcoming game for the next 5 years on at least medium settings, if not totally maxed out) for less than even the 360?AdrianWerner
No, but if I buy at least one game each month the ammount of money I will save compared to 360 games is more than enough for upgrade every two years. Throw in free online and yeah for most serious gamers gaming in 360 is more expensive in europe than Pcgaming
I disagree here, too. Most casuals I know buy less than one game a month, or wait to buy them used (almost all my PS2 games are used and discounted).
Â
And what about cross-game capabilities? Some people like the video and voice chat and invites that can work even when you're playing different games.Â
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]GT3 is anything but casual game. And Sims sold more than any of those you've mentioned. True casuals play ONLY on Pc, it's a known fact. a 40years old housewive will never play on a console, but she regulary plays bejeweled or sims on her pcThen exactly how many did it sell? 20 million? Unless you have a solid number, I still say GT3 sold more (the 14 million is a solid number from NPD), and many people bought PS2's just for that game (PS2 sales surged when the game first came out). Actually, the best selling PS2 game is San Andreas, at 14 million. The Sims however, had sold 16 million as of early 2005. It is only logical to assume it has sold more since then. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/feb/1114806.htm
HuusAsking
Â
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]
So you can buy a PC that is future-resistant for at least five years (able to run any upcoming game for the next 5 years on at least medium settings, if not totally maxed out) for less than even the 360?HuusAsking
No, but if I buy at least one game each month the ammount of money I will save compared to 360 games is more than enough for upgrade every two years. Throw in free online and yeah for most serious gamers gaming in 360 is more expensive in europe than Pcgaming
I disagree here, too. Most casuals I know buy less than one game a month, or wait to buy them used (almost all my PS2 games are used and discounted).
Â
And what about cross-game capabilities? Some people like the video and voice chat and invites that can work even when you're playing different games.Â
Â
those people aren't casuals, they're just the most casual among console gamers. there's a big diffrence. Somebody who bought GTA is hardly casual, somebody who buys many games each year is also isn't true casual. casual aren't true gamers, despite the fact that they play games from time to time. To buy console a toy designed solely to play games you have to be a gamer. this is nicely ilustrated by the fact that pcgamers are on average 8-10 years older and female gamers for bigger percentage of pcgamers than console onesÂ
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="jrhawk42"]I had always been under the impression that the reverse is true. I believe games like Call of Dutys 2 and 3 increase the user limit in PC games as opposed to Live, and so on.9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
jrhawk42
User limits are higher on pc games because alot of users tend to go on dedicated servers which have really high bandwidth (T1+), if you try to host your own it can get pretty ugly on pc.
Nobody hosts their own servers, dedicated servers are used near-exclusively for online PC games. The fact that no (or very, very few) console games support dedicated servers mean PC games have the advantage in supported player-counts. Not that that's always taken advantage of, since very few games/gametypes work well (from a gameplay standpoint) with large amounts of players..
Because of this, PC games aren't optimized for hosting with slow upstream connections, like console games are.
Maybe you should revise your post, since indeed the opposite is true to what you posted. PC games typically support many, many more players.
I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.Kayrod29You haven't looked hard enough. With the right mods, Oblivion is a completely different experience. Better graphics, better levelling system, extra weapons, armor, enemies, animals. What's not to like?
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]GT3 is anything but casual game. And Sims sold more than any of those you've mentioned. True casuals play ONLY on Pc, it's a known fact. a 40years old housewive will never play on a console, but she regulary plays bejeweled or sims on her pcThen exactly how many did it sell? 20 million? Unless you have a solid number, I still say GT3 sold more (the 14 million is a solid number from NPD), and many people bought PS2's just for that game (PS2 sales surged when the game first came out). Actually, the best selling PS2 game is San Andreas, at 14 million. The Sims however, had sold 16 million as of early 2005. It is only logical to assume it has sold more since then. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/feb/1114806.htmNow combine the San Andreas PS2 numbers with XBox and PC numbers.
Danm_999
All are accurate except for #9. Computers can host ENORMOUS servers with TONS of players. It is actually practically limitless as long as a large enough server and bandwidth are available.MadExponentI never did get that other question answered. How can server hosts be so philanthropic when it comes to game servers, footing the bill for the machine, maintenance, and bandwidth?
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]GT3 is anything but casual game. And Sims sold more than any of those you've mentioned. True casuals play ONLY on Pc, it's a known fact. a 40years old housewive will never play on a console, but she regulary plays bejeweled or sims on her pcThen exactly how many did it sell? 20 million? Unless you have a solid number, I still say GT3 sold more (the 14 million is a solid number from NPD), and many people bought PS2's just for that game (PS2 sales surged when the game first came out). Actually, the best selling PS2 game is San Andreas, at 14 million. The Sims however, had sold 16 million as of early 2005. It is only logical to assume it has sold more since then. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/feb/1114806.htmNow combine the San Andreas PS2 numbers with XBox and PC numbers. Those figures are from Wikipedia and according to that, are inclusive of all versions (as far as can be told since the information comes from Take 2).
HuusAsking
What I didn't include however, was all the Sims sales that came from expansion bundles, console ports and various adds ons, which confirm the fact that the Sims is the best selling title of last generation.
Then exactly how many did it sell? 20 million? Unless you have a solid number, I still say GT3 sold more (the 14 million is a solid number from NPD), and many people bought PS2's just for that game (PS2 sales surged when the game first came out). Actually, the best selling PS2 game is San Andreas, at 14 million. The Sims however, had sold 16 million as of early 2005. It is only logical to assume it has sold more since then. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/feb/1114806.htmNow combine the San Andreas PS2 numbers with XBox and PC numbers. Those figures are from Wikipedia and according to that, are inclusive of all versions (as far as can be told since the information comes from Take 2).[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]GT3 is anything but casual game. And Sims sold more than any of those you've mentioned. True casuals play ONLY on Pc, it's a known fact. a 40years old housewive will never play on a console, but she regulary plays bejeweled or sims on her pc
Danm_999
What I didn't include however, was all the Sims sales that came from expansion bundles, console ports and various adds ons, which confirm the fact that the Sims is the best selling title of last generation.
And where does Wikipedia get its numbers? A user-edited encyclopedia is not exactly the most reliable of sources unless your citation is itself cited. Is the citation from someplace reliable like NPD?Whatever you have to tell yourself so you can sleep better at night, it doesn't change the fact that pc gaming is growing and isn't going to die anytime soon. FPS's, RTS's, MMORPG's, and ONLINE play will always be better on PC's. If you think about it consoles are becoming more and more like PC's, if PC's were so crappy as a gaming machine why would Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo try to emulate them? coolviper2003
I agree with your view on MS and Sony but I fail to see how Nintendo is emulating anything PC.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Then exactly how many did it sell? 20 million? Unless you have a solid number, I still say GT3 sold more (the 14 million is a solid number from NPD), and many people bought PS2's just for that game (PS2 sales surged when the game first came out). Actually, the best selling PS2 game is San Andreas, at 14 million. The Sims however, had sold 16 million as of early 2005. It is only logical to assume it has sold more since then. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/feb/1114806.htmNow combine the San Andreas PS2 numbers with XBox and PC numbers. Those figures are from Wikipedia and according to that, are inclusive of all versions (as far as can be told since the information comes from Take 2).[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]GT3 is anything but casual game. And Sims sold more than any of those you've mentioned. True casuals play ONLY on Pc, it's a known fact. a 40years old housewive will never play on a console, but she regulary plays bejeweled or sims on her pc
HuusAsking
What I didn't include however, was all the Sims sales that came from expansion bundles, console ports and various adds ons, which confirm the fact that the Sims is the best selling title of last generation.
And where does Wikipedia get its numbers? A user-edited encyclopedia is not exactly the most reliable of sources unless your citation is itself cited. Is the citation from someplace reliable like NPD? From here; http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/feb/1114806.htmÂ
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]
So you can buy a PC that is future-resistant for at least five years (able to run any upcoming game for the next 5 years on at least medium settings, if not totally maxed out) for less than even the 360?AdrianWerner
No, but if I buy at least one game each month the ammount of money I will save compared to 360 games is more than enough for upgrade every two years. Throw in free online and yeah for most serious gamers gaming in 360 is more expensive in europe than Pcgaming
I disagree here, too. Most casuals I know buy less than one game a month, or wait to buy them used (almost all my PS2 games are used and discounted).
Â
And what about cross-game capabilities? Some people like the video and voice chat and invites that can work even when you're playing different games.Â
Â
those people aren't casuals, they're just the most casual among console gamers. there's a big diffrence. Somebody who bought GTA is hardly casual, somebody who buys many games each year is also isn't true casual. casual aren't true gamers, despite the fact that they play games from time to time. To buy console a toy designed solely to play games you have to be a gamer. this is nicely ilustrated by the fact that pcgamers are on average 8-10 years older and female gamers for bigger percentage of pcgamers than console onesÂ
False generalization. I consider my wife to be a casual and not only did she buy GTA, she also almost finished it.
I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.Kayrod29I am a PC gamer and I can't stand most mods. 99.99% of the mods out there are total garbage. I have zero interest in wading through the crap to get to the good stuff. And in most cases mods only extend the live of the existing game by changing aspects of it. "Total conversion" mods are few and far between when it comes to quality. I'll never understand the whole argument about PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games. Mathematically it makes sense, but in the real world it doesn't.
[QUOTE="MadExponent"]All are accurate except for #9. Computers can host ENORMOUS servers with TONS of players. It is actually practically limitless as long as a large enough server and bandwidth are available.HuusAskingI never did get that other question answered. How can server hosts be so philanthropic when it comes to game servers, footing the bill for the machine, maintenance, and bandwidth? They are not. If you want to play online on most PC games you have to join a server that is paid for by someone out there. They either pay out of their pockets or the server is paid for with sponsorship money. My old CS:S team was sponsored from top to bottom including servers, website, ventrilo, and lan accommodations. That is nice when you don't have to cover those kind of bills. That stuff gets expensive in a hurry.
2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
jrhawk42
2 Now it looks worse, maybe in year or two
3 Two if you buy pretty expensive PC, one if not
7 They had, now PC games are total crap
8 Mods - low quality addition are made by fans. Exceptions are very rare
11 I was a computer "nerd", not anymore cause modern PC games sucks (more precisly SUCKS)
[QUOTE="Kayrod29"]I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.BgrngodI am a PC gamer and I can't stand most mods. 99.99% of the mods out there are total garbage. I have zero interest in wading through the crap to get to the good stuff. And in most cases mods only extend the live of the existing game by changing aspects of it. "Total conversion" mods are few and far between when it comes to quality. I'll never understand the whole argument about PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games. Mathematically it makes sense, but in the real world it doesn't.
Â
Mods give us what developers cannot.
There are full licensing mods for Pro Evo 6 that KONAMI cant do because EA has bought out all the rights.
There are LoTR movie mods that only modders can do because EA has the rights.
There are Halo/Starcraft/Warhammer mods for games that the original company would NEVER do them...
Thats the true magic of PC gaming. And last you dont have to wade through nothing...the best mods/Total Conversions are the most publicised and apparent on the net...Â
[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
dimar19
2 Now it looks worse, maybe in year or two
3 Two if you buy pretty expensive PC, one if not
7 They had, now PC games are total crap
8 Mods - low quality addition are made by fans. Exceptions are very rare
11 I was a computer "nerd", not anymore cause modern PC games sucks (more precisly SUCKS)
Â
since we all know that you are a blind console fanboy and pc hater i doubt that anyone will take you seriously...Â
I am a PC gamer and I can't stand most mods. 99.99% of the mods out there are total garbage. I have zero interest in wading through the crap to get to the good stuff. And in most cases mods only extend the live of the existing game by changing aspects of it. "Total conversion" mods are few and far between when it comes to quality. I'll never understand the whole argument about PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games. Mathematically it makes sense, but in the real world it doesn't.[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Kayrod29"]I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.True_Gamer_
Â
Mods give us what developers cannot.
There are full licensing mods for Pro Evo 6 that KONAMI cant do because EA has bought out all the rights.
There are LoTR movie mods that only modders can do because EA has the rights.
There are Halo/Starcraft/Warhammer mods for games that the original company would NEVER do them...
Thats the true magic of PC gaming. And last you dont have to wade through nothing...the best mods/Total Conversions are the most publicised and apparent on the net...Â
Mods to me are like Fan Fiction. I couldn't care less, regardless of how good they may be to those that use them.I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.Kayrod29Max Payne 2 mods are orgasmic.
[QUOTE="Kayrod29"]I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.BgrngodI am a PC gamer and I can't stand most mods. 99.99% of the mods out there are total garbage. I have zero interest in wading through the crap to get to the good stuff. And in most cases mods only extend the live of the existing game by changing aspects of it. "Total conversion" mods are few and far between when it comes to quality. I'll never understand the whole argument about PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games. Mathematically it makes sense, but in the real world it doesn't.
Well, I love mods. They extend my pleasure almost indefinitly.
Really... without mods I wouldn't be able to experience great stealth gameplay. Thief2 was the pinnacle of the genre and it was released in 2000, every stealth game released after that (including Thief3..thanks Xbox :( ) simply pales in comparision. On consoles it would mean no good new stealth, on pc there have been constant stream of high-quality( comparable to original) Fan missions. Thanks to Thievery UT mod I've experienced the ultimate stealth MP, SPlinte cell is just pathetic in comparision. Devs have abaddoned space sims(it started to change for better only recently), since 2000 till 2005 the genre survived solely on mods. And it goes on and on. close combat, F1challenge( Sony bought the license, without mods there would no good new F1 game content). mods can extend the game time like hell, which is especialy important in unique games, when you don't have any new similiar games only mods can satisfy your need for more. But maybe I'm just weirdo, console gamers seem to be satisfied with paying 60$ for 6hrs games afterall :)
not to mention the cases when mods can turn average game into great one (Oblivion, european air war or Silent hunter 2 are best examples of that)
Oh...and "PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games' is BS, I agree with you, the more games you buy the smaller price advantage consoles have becomes
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="MadExponent"]All are accurate except for #9. Computers can host ENORMOUS servers with TONS of players. It is actually practically limitless as long as a large enough server and bandwidth are available.MadExponentI never did get that other question answered. How can server hosts be so philanthropic when it comes to game servers, footing the bill for the machine, maintenance, and bandwidth? They are not. If you want to play online on most PC games you have to join a server that is paid for by someone out there. They either pay out of their pockets or the server is paid for with sponsorship money. My old CS:S team was sponsored from top to bottom including servers, website, ventrilo, and lan accommodations. That is nice when you don't have to cover those kind of bills. That stuff gets expensive in a hurry.That's what I'm talking about: servers either getting sponsorship (How do the sponsors recoup the money?) or paying it themselves (this is what I meant by philanthropy).
[QUOTE="MadExponent"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="MadExponent"]All are accurate except for #9. Computers can host ENORMOUS servers with TONS of players. It is actually practically limitless as long as a large enough server and bandwidth are available.HuusAskingI never did get that other question answered. How can server hosts be so philanthropic when it comes to game servers, footing the bill for the machine, maintenance, and bandwidth? They are not. If you want to play online on most PC games you have to join a server that is paid for by someone out there. They either pay out of their pockets or the server is paid for with sponsorship money. My old CS:S team was sponsored from top to bottom including servers, website, ventrilo, and lan accommodations. That is nice when you don't have to cover those kind of bills. That stuff gets expensive in a hurry.That's what I'm talking about: servers either getting sponsorship (How do the sponsors recoup the money?) or paying it themselves (this is what I meant by philanthropy). Sponsors get advertising, usually on the clan's server or website. Games with as many players out there like cs and cs:s the potential coverage the sponsor gets out of it is almost unrivaled. Also, I run a clan and it's fairly easy to cover server costs when we each put in a little money every month. Everyone is 20+, so it's not like $10/mo is much of anything.
[QUOTE="Kayrod29"]I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.BgrngodI am a PC gamer and I can't stand most mods. 99.99% of the mods out there are total garbage. I have zero interest in wading through the crap to get to the good stuff. And in most cases mods only extend the live of the existing game by changing aspects of it. "Total conversion" mods are few and far between when it comes to quality. I'll never understand the whole argument about PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games. Mathematically it makes sense, but in the real world it doesn't. Explain how buying more games to reach the same ammount of content as fewer games isn't a fair comparison. Its probably the most objective way to look at it. If I wasn't going off of intrinsic value it would get sloppy and subjective. Fact of the matter is, in order to get the same ammount of content in PC games you have to buy almost twice as many console games. The fewer games arguement is valid for this very reasons. Over a longer, extended period of time you could conceivably spend less on a gaming PC than a console. I know I have.
[QUOTE="MadExponent"]All are accurate except for #9. Computers can host ENORMOUS servers with TONS of players. It is actually practically limitless as long as a large enough server and bandwidth are available.HuusAskingI never did get that other question answered. How can server hosts be so philanthropic when it comes to game servers, footing the bill for the machine, maintenance, and bandwidth?
 Same reason I purchased a second XBox with a second Hi-speed line into my house.. So me and anyone I wanted (friends, buddies online etc) could have an excellent experience anytime we wanted. You are God, dedicated machine (second copy of RB6), line and you have the control of booting whomever you want.
 Oh, having lots of disposable income helps as well.... :roll:
 Its really NOT that pricey...
JUst got a beefy gaming rig (to go with my 360) and I'm tempted to create my own server for some gaming on it as well....
 Peace out...
This is all true PC's are not for noobs only Exeperianced hardcores.You can read my blog for more detail.
1st. PC gaming is more expensive anyway you look at it, but for PC users it's worth it.
2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
5th can't buy used PC games, some places may sell them but it's often against the TOS, and quite risky to buy them.
6th you may be able to use a game pad on a pc to play console type games, but it's always a pain in the ass.
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
10th buying/renting/using a dedicated server is more expensive than XBL, but many are free.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
jrhawk42
[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]This is all true PC's are not for noobs only Exeperianced hardcores. Actually, all of those save 10re misconceptions based around the preconception that PC gaming is limited. The PC can do anything you bloody well want it to whether you automate everythign or not. You can have a PC that provides the exact same experience as consoles for the same price as consoles. Not to mention you can scale down games and allow them to work for longer than 3 years on any relatively good 3D accellorater card.You can read my blog for more detail.
1st. PC gaming is more expensive anyway you look at it, but for PC users it's worth it.
2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
5th can't buy used PC games, some places may sell them but it's often against the TOS, and quite risky to buy them.
6th you may be able to use a game pad on a pc to play console type games, but it's always a pain in the ass.
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
10th buying/renting/using a dedicated server is more expensive than XBL, but many are free.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
peacebringer
[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Kayrod29"]I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.VandalvideoI am a PC gamer and I can't stand most mods. 99.99% of the mods out there are total garbage. I have zero interest in wading through the crap to get to the good stuff. And in most cases mods only extend the live of the existing game by changing aspects of it. "Total conversion" mods are few and far between when it comes to quality. I'll never understand the whole argument about PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games. Mathematically it makes sense, but in the real world it doesn't. Explain how buying more games to reach the same ammount of content as fewer games isn't a fair comparison. Its probably the most objective way to look at it. If I wasn't going off of intrinsic value it would get sloppy and subjective. Fact of the matter is, in order to get the same ammount of content in PC games you have to buy almost twice as many console games. The fewer games arguement is valid for this very reasons. Over a longer, extended period of time you could conceivably spend less on a gaming PC than a console. I know I have. Quite simply because that is an argument based around games people want to play. I don't want to play mods. Other people have a different opinion and are content playing mods all the time. Factoring in how many games people buy would be based solely on the individual opinion for each gamer. When arguing about PC vs Console cost you have to stick strictly to the cost of getting any new game to be playable. Value and Cost are two totally different things. Yes you get more value out of PC gaming if you are into mods. PC gaming still costs more then console gaming. If you are not into mods at all, then console gaming is obviously the cheaper of the two.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Kayrod29"]I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.BgrngodI am a PC gamer and I can't stand most mods. 99.99% of the mods out there are total garbage. I have zero interest in wading through the crap to get to the good stuff. And in most cases mods only extend the live of the existing game by changing aspects of it. "Total conversion" mods are few and far between when it comes to quality. I'll never understand the whole argument about PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games. Mathematically it makes sense, but in the real world it doesn't. Explain how buying more games to reach the same ammount of content as fewer games isn't a fair comparison. Its probably the most objective way to look at it. If I wasn't going off of intrinsic value it would get sloppy and subjective. Fact of the matter is, in order to get the same ammount of content in PC games you have to buy almost twice as many console games. The fewer games arguement is valid for this very reasons. Over a longer, extended period of time you could conceivably spend less on a gaming PC than a console. I know I have. Quite simply because that is an argument based around games people want to play. I don't want to play mods. Other people have a different opinion and are content playing mods all the time. Factoring in how many games people buy would be based solely on the individual opinion for each gamer. When arguing about PC vs Console cost you have to stick strictly to the cost of getting any new game to be playable. Value and Cost are two totally different things. Yes you get more value out of PC gaming if you are into mods. PC gaming still costs more then console gaming. If you are not into mods at all, then console gaming is obviously the cheaper of the two. I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.
[QUOTE="peacebringer"][QUOTE="jrhawk42"]This is all true PC's are not for noobs only Exeperianced hardcores. Actually, all of those save 10re misconceptions based around the preconception that PC gaming is limited. The PC can do anything you bloody well want it to whether you automate everythign or not. You can have a PC that provides the exact same experience as consoles for the same price as consoles. Not to mention you can scale down games and allow them to work for longer than 3 years on any relatively good 3D accellorater card. Yes your right but i'm saying good luck getting someone to Debug there own Games. Example i one bought BF2. it installed but it didn't wanna take the CD. i myself had to search for the reason found out it was because i installed in another user on the PC and i tried to play it on another USer. this took me 2 hrs to Fix and find out. i had to uninstal then reinstal. most console owners are not used to stuff like that and when i first got into PC would take me longer. PC's are in no way for people who have no Interest in Computers and the way the work. if you wanna be a PC gamer you have to accept the million of bad things about it but the Few things it does better is enough to keep me hooked(online) and bothering with the hassles.You can read my blog for more detail.
1st. PC gaming is more expensive anyway you look at it, but for PC users it's worth it.
2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
5th can't buy used PC games, some places may sell them but it's often against the TOS, and quite risky to buy them.
6th you may be able to use a game pad on a pc to play console type games, but it's always a pain in the ass.
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
10th buying/renting/using a dedicated server is more expensive than XBL, but many are free.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
Vandalvideo
1st. PC gaming is more expensive anyway you look at it, but for PC users it's worth it.jrhawk42
I will go against the general belief here and say, yes if you want a top of the notch system it is very expensive, and it is sickening how fast the prices of hardware drop. So you better educate before buying a PC, check if there's something new comming out that will nuke the prices of other hardware etc.
The fact is a console without games is cheaper as a gaming PC without games.
However it all depends on what you want. You don't have to go all out and throw $3000 for a PC to be able to play games, no! You can play games on PCs as low as $600-800. But yeah the price to performance ration is there. If you have clue about PC you can juice a lot out of low-end hardware but then there also something to be juiced out of high-end hardware so it's not worth a true debate. You get what you pay for.
Â
2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
In fact that is to some degree false. If we take for example this generation and compare Xbox360 & PS3 to the PC. It was already over for the console supremacy when the nVIDIA 8800 series came to the market. Now if you buy this card, you are already ahead of consoles, so you really don't need to wait for 9900 series or even past. And in 10 years time, if you have still and 8800 card in your old PC it's still going to out perform the PS3 or Xbox360 at that time.
However in 10 years time, we'll have hardware (not only GFX cards) that outperform the PS3 & Xbox 360 by a factor of 10 or even higher. Ofc new consoles will also be released at that time or sooner.
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
Now this is partialy true. If you want the games to look as they should, you should update, however if you don't mind the games looks you can almost certainly play most games on lower setting on even a 5 or 6 year old rigs. But I would agree, play games as they are ment to be played. Why would I buy for example a new Doom 5 game if I wont have the ability to see it in all it's glory.
However that is me, others may have different opinions on that matter.
4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
It ain't easy, but it also ain't hard to learn. Especially if you make it a hobby as someone mentioned. It certainly requires a level of knowledge, compared to consoles. But it is good so, you don't want to have a console instead a PC do you? :)
5th can't buy used PC games, some places may sell them but it's often against the TOS, and quite risky to buy them.
This is indeed true, however I never buy used stuff (just not my coup of tea). It is risky because of all the CD-KEY issues and stuff, however if you go into these waters you have to be prepared to get ripped off sometime. On the other side, a new PC game costs as much as a used console game :), so the games for the PC are already relatively cheap to begin with.
6th you may be able to use a game pad on a pc to play console type games, but it's always a pain in the ass.
Now this is completely wrong. I never had problems with anything hooked up to the PC aslong as the game supports it. Now if I want to play a game where you fly and airplane, simulation or not, I will use joystick (flight stick, throttle, peddals) and not a game pad, if I want to drive a car I will use a wheel + peddals not a game pad. So ofc it might be pain to play a flight simulator with a game pad because it wasn't ment to be played with it or maybe it doesn't even support it. If I want to play some 2d side scrollers on the PC I will use a game pad, or for soccer for example.
However usually everything you hook up to the PC can be mapped to work with any game. You can almost certainly make any gaming device to work as a keyboard and you can map any button on it to represent keyboard buttons and this will make it work flawlesly - as said - if the game doesn't support it from the get go.
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
It is the eye of the beholder. For me, this statement of yours is certainly true, however someone else might not find the stuff on the PC so attractive. But in the end as you say there is a lot of stuff to pick from on the PC, so it has mostly something for everyone. There are certain dim spots (like popular fighting games) which miss from the PCs catalogue, but yeah it's not like consoles don't miss some stuff to.
It's crap but it's the way it is.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
Mods are very nice and are the thing that keeps a game going for much longer then it would withou it. I like them very much, however I mostly cherish the mods that add some competitive stuff to the game as oposed of change the game (Total conversion). Altho as said, theres a big library of mods to choose from and there is something for eveyone.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
I don't know what you mean with this. But virtualy most games on the PC can have from 16-32 players on server and some games range even from 64-124 and beyond. If you however mean hosting listen servers you are probably right, as they are mostly limited to 6-8 players, but then again listen servers are almost dead when it comes to PC gaming, they are crap and usually don't work as they should. That's why we have dedicated servers which work flawlessly.
10th buying/renting/using a dedicated server is more expensive than XBL, but many are free.
Some servers which are hosted on some hosting site are payed by clans/teams which pay them with their own pockets. Now if you have 10 members in a clan an everyone has to give $5 to have a dedicated server for a year, I'd say that's not expensive. However most servers are hosted for free on some user machines or internet service providers as for example the gameing department of that service provider to offer to their customers and beyond. So I'd say 60% of all dedicated servers are hosted for free, even if not they are not so expensive.
The biggest factor here is, dedicated servers steamroll over listen (Xbox) servers. Listen as wrote above, have been eradicated from the PC world the day Quake 1 came with it's dedicated server support and that was in 1996.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
You don't have to be a computer nerd to be a PC gamer, what is a computer nerd anyway? Most PC gamers have alos PC as their hobby (if this makes them nerds) what makes tunning you car of you then? And yes the PC communities have some birght stars that ruin the game for you, just as the Xbox Live communities have their own.
It's the same just a different platform.
I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.VandalvideoSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. Again, Cost and Value are two totally different things. What you and I are not seeing eye to eye on is what we mean by Cost. When I think cost, I think how much it costs someone from not having any hardware to having all the hardware required to play a game on either platform. What I suspect you think of as cost is the ongoing average cost to continually be a PC gamer vs. the average ongoing cost to be a console gamer. Whether you are thinking monthly costs, yearly costs or whatever. Since you are looking at it from this angle, yes being a PC gamer can be cheaper to you since you buy fewer PC games and hardly ever upgrade your hardware. Getting started at being a PC gamer is more expensive then getting started at console gaming. Ongoing PC costs are going to be much higher if you want to play games at what could be called a satisfactory level of performance (read: at least on average). But then there are the people that only buy consoles when they are at the $150 price point. PC gaming will never be cheaper then how much these people end up spending. All costs are individual depending on who the person is. I've spent, and will spend, way more money being a PC gamer then I do being a 360 gamer or a PS3 gamer. From here on out for those two console platforms I only really need to spend money on games until the next-generation comes out in 5 years or so. My PC however will get upgraded every year or so.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.BgrngodSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. Again, Cost and Value are two totally different things. What you and I are not seeing eye to eye on is what we mean by Cost. When I think cost, I think how much it costs someone from not having any hardware to having all the hardware required to play a game on either platform. What I suspect you think of as cost is the ongoing average cost to continually be a PC gamer vs. the average ongoing cost to be a console gamer. Whether you are thinking monthly costs, yearly costs or whatever. Since you are looking at it from this angle, yes being a PC gamer can be cheaper to you since you buy fewer PC games and hardly ever upgrade your hardware. Getting started at being a PC gamer is more expensive then getting started at console gaming. Ongoing PC costs are going to be much higher if you want to play games at what could be called a satisfactory level of performance (read: at least on average). But then there are the people that only buy consoles when they are at the $150 price point. PC gaming will never be cheaper then how much these people end up spending. All costs are individual depending on who the person is. I've spent, and will spend, way more money being a PC gamer then I do being a 360 gamer or a PS3 gamer. From here on out for those two console platforms I only really need to spend money on games until the next-generation comes out in 5 years or so. My PC however will get upgraded every year or so.
Is your PC so horrible that you have to upgrade every year?Â
[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"]I am a PC gamer and I can't stand most mods. 99.99% of the mods out there are total garbage. I have zero interest in wading through the crap to get to the good stuff. And in most cases mods only extend the live of the existing game by changing aspects of it. "Total conversion" mods are few and far between when it comes to quality. I'll never understand the whole argument about PC gaming being cheaper because you buy fewer games. Mathematically it makes sense, but in the real world it doesn't.[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Kayrod29"]I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.Bgrngod
Â
Mods give us what developers cannot.
There are full licensing mods for Pro Evo 6 that KONAMI cant do because EA has bought out all the rights.
There are LoTR movie mods that only modders can do because EA has the rights.
There are Halo/Starcraft/Warhammer mods for games that the original company would NEVER do them...
Thats the true magic of PC gaming. And last you dont have to wade through nothing...the best mods/Total Conversions are the most publicised and apparent on the net...
Mods to me are like Fan Fiction. I couldn't care less, regardless of how good they may be to those that use them.Â
When people make this:
 
Â
look like these:
Â
I have nothing more to add...Â
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.BgrngodSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. Again, Cost and Value are two totally different things. What you and I are not seeing eye to eye on is what we mean by Cost. When I think cost, I think how much it costs someone from not having any hardware to having all the hardware required to play a game on either platform. What I suspect you think of as cost is the ongoing average cost to continually be a PC gamer vs. the average ongoing cost to be a console gamer. Whether you are thinking monthly costs, yearly costs or whatever. Since you are looking at it from this angle, yes being a PC gamer can be cheaper to you since you buy fewer PC games and hardly ever upgrade your hardware. Getting started at being a PC gamer is more expensive then getting started at console gaming. Ongoing PC costs are going to be much higher if you want to play games at what could be called a satisfactory level of performance (read: at least on average). But then there are the people that only buy consoles when they are at the $150 price point. PC gaming will never be cheaper then how much these people end up spending. All costs are individual depending on who the person is. I've spent, and will spend, way more money being a PC gamer then I do being a 360 gamer or a PS3 gamer. From here on out for those two console platforms I only really need to spend money on games until the next-generation comes out in 5 years or so. My PC however will get upgraded every year or so. And that is why I through in one very important word that you have totally overlooked. "Conceivable". If you want an experience similar to consoles, you can purchase some hardware in 2006 that outperforms it, and by 2011 it will STILL be outperforming it. Its not ilke you HAVE TO UPGRADE over the span of a generation. And yes, I'm speaking about the overal costs over a longer period of time, because face value arguements are extremely shallow. Saying "PC gaming is more expensive up front" is totally right, but totally shallow. If you're spending more on consoles over tiem it kind of defeats the purpose to begin with.
[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.VandalvideoSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. Again, Cost and Value are two totally different things. What you and I are not seeing eye to eye on is what we mean by Cost. When I think cost, I think how much it costs someone from not having any hardware to having all the hardware required to play a game on either platform. What I suspect you think of as cost is the ongoing average cost to continually be a PC gamer vs. the average ongoing cost to be a console gamer. Whether you are thinking monthly costs, yearly costs or whatever. Since you are looking at it from this angle, yes being a PC gamer can be cheaper to you since you buy fewer PC games and hardly ever upgrade your hardware. Getting started at being a PC gamer is more expensive then getting started at console gaming. Ongoing PC costs are going to be much higher if you want to play games at what could be called a satisfactory level of performance (read: at least on average). But then there are the people that only buy consoles when they are at the $150 price point. PC gaming will never be cheaper then how much these people end up spending. All costs are individual depending on who the person is. I've spent, and will spend, way more money being a PC gamer then I do being a 360 gamer or a PS3 gamer. From here on out for those two console platforms I only really need to spend money on games until the next-generation comes out in 5 years or so. My PC however will get upgraded every year or so. And that is why I through in one very important word that you have totally overlooked. "Conceivable". If you want an experience similar to consoles, you can purchase some hardware in 2006 that outperforms it, and by 2011 it will STILL be outperforming it. Its not ilke you HAVE TO UPGRADE over the span of a generation. And yes, I'm speaking about the overal costs over a longer period of time, because face value arguements are extremely shallow. Saying "PC gaming is more expensive up front" is totally right, but totally shallow. If you're spending more on consoles over tiem it kind of defeats the purpose to begin with.
Â
Thats the trick that the console gaming industry uses to milk the hell out of the casuals...
They sell you the starting hardware at a loss and then milk the hell out of you through overpriced games and peripherals (Xbox360 elite 120gb HDD $180...for christ's sake its $50 on PC)...
People are much more lenient to pay less up front and bleed over time...Â
[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.VandalvideoSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. Again, Cost and Value are two totally different things. What you and I are not seeing eye to eye on is what we mean by Cost. When I think cost, I think how much it costs someone from not having any hardware to having all the hardware required to play a game on either platform. What I suspect you think of as cost is the ongoing average cost to continually be a PC gamer vs. the average ongoing cost to be a console gamer. Whether you are thinking monthly costs, yearly costs or whatever. Since you are looking at it from this angle, yes being a PC gamer can be cheaper to you since you buy fewer PC games and hardly ever upgrade your hardware. Getting started at being a PC gamer is more expensive then getting started at console gaming. Ongoing PC costs are going to be much higher if you want to play games at what could be called a satisfactory level of performance (read: at least on average). But then there are the people that only buy consoles when they are at the $150 price point. PC gaming will never be cheaper then how much these people end up spending. All costs are individual depending on who the person is. I've spent, and will spend, way more money being a PC gamer then I do being a 360 gamer or a PS3 gamer. From here on out for those two console platforms I only really need to spend money on games until the next-generation comes out in 5 years or so. My PC however will get upgraded every year or so. And that is why I through in one very important word that you have totally overlooked. "Conceivable". If you want an experience similar to consoles, you can purchase some hardware in 2006 that outperforms it, and by 2011 it will STILL be outperforming it. Its not ilke you HAVE TO UPGRADE over the span of a generation. And yes, I'm speaking about the overal costs over a longer period of time, because face value arguements are extremely shallow. Saying "PC gaming is more expensive up front" is totally right, but totally shallow. If you're spending more on consoles over tiem it kind of defeats the purpose to begin with. I don't see where you used "Conceivable" in your post anywhere. And I don't see what context you tried to use it in either.
Would I want to buy new hardware for my PC in 2006 and keep using it all the way until 2011? Absolutely not. Yes that is a possible decision, but not a viable one for myself or most PC gamers. Anything is possible with PC gaming really, but that doesn't make options realistic, or used often. Even so, that would never be cheaper then buying a PSone for $150 in 2000 and then having picked up a PS2 in 2004 for $150 and playing it until 2008.
Console gaming can also be done on the cheap using your exact same logic. This is not using the "face value" logic, but it is still cheaper. No one is forcing console gamers to buy systems at launch. Both options have similar drawbacks. PC gaming in 2011 on a 2007 rig would mean much lower settings, and waiting for price drops means you can't play the games that came out for that format until you buy it. Both are basically the same. You don't get to play the game at the level you want to. Come 2012 when you DO have to upgrade that computer to continue playing new releases, you are going to be spending a chunk of cash to get a new rig up to speed. Replacing the CPU, Mobo, Vid Card, Ram and whatever other parts end up becoming incompatible with whatever standards are out by then. It is required to upgrade PC components once in awhile to continually be a PC gamer.
In my personal opinion none of those is acceptable for the type of gaming I want to do. Do I have to have the fastest video card? No, but I have to have one that can at least run at a speed I find acceptable. There is no chance in hell that I will be using th same hardware my current PC has in 2011.
So for many many people, even though they can do it cheaply, the ongoing cost of being a PC gamer is more expensive then being a console gamer.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.BgrngodSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. Again, Cost and Value are two totally different things. What you and I are not seeing eye to eye on is what we mean by Cost. When I think cost, I think how much it costs someone from not having any hardware to having all the hardware required to play a game on either platform. What I suspect you think of as cost is the ongoing average cost to continually be a PC gamer vs. the average ongoing cost to be a console gamer. Whether you are thinking monthly costs, yearly costs or whatever. Since you are looking at it from this angle, yes being a PC gamer can be cheaper to you since you buy fewer PC games and hardly ever upgrade your hardware. Getting started at being a PC gamer is more expensive then getting started at console gaming. Ongoing PC costs are going to be much higher if you want to play games at what could be called a satisfactory level of performance (read: at least on average). But then there are the people that only buy consoles when they are at the $150 price point. PC gaming will never be cheaper then how much these people end up spending. All costs are individual depending on who the person is. I've spent, and will spend, way more money being a PC gamer then I do being a 360 gamer or a PS3 gamer. From here on out for those two console platforms I only really need to spend money on games until the next-generation comes out in 5 years or so. My PC however will get upgraded every year or so. And that is why I through in one very important word that you have totally overlooked. "Conceivable". If you want an experience similar to consoles, you can purchase some hardware in 2006 that outperforms it, and by 2011 it will STILL be outperforming it. Its not ilke you HAVE TO UPGRADE over the span of a generation. And yes, I'm speaking about the overal costs over a longer period of time, because face value arguements are extremely shallow. Saying "PC gaming is more expensive up front" is totally right, but totally shallow. If you're spending more on consoles over tiem it kind of defeats the purpose to begin with. I don't see where you used "Conceivable" in your post anywhere. And I don't see what context you tried to use it in either. Would I want to buy new hardware for my PC in 2006 and keep using it all the way until 2011? Absolutely not. Yes that is a possible decision, but not a viable one for myself or most PC gamers. Anything is possible with PC gaming really, but that doesn't make options realistic, or used often. Even so, that would never be cheaper then buying a PSone for $150 in 2000 and then having picked up a PS2 in 2004 for $150 and playing it until 2008. Console gaming can also be done on the cheap using your exact same logic. This is not using the "face value" logic, but it is still cheaper. No one is forcing console gamers to buy systems at launch. Both options have similar drawbacks. PC gaming in 2011 on a 2007 rig would mean much lower settings, and waiting for price drops means you can't play the games that came out for that format until you buy it. Both are basically the same. You don't get to play the game at the level you want to. In my personal opinion none of those is acceptable for the type of gaming I want to do. Do I have to have the fastest video card? No, but I have to have one that can at least run at a speed I find acceptable. There is no chance in hell that I will be using th same hardware my current PC has in 2011. So for many many people, even though they can do it cheaply, the ongoing cost of being a PC gamer is more expensive then being a console gamer. Not viable because yuo people are stuck on a "highest settings omg" binge. You do not have to have highest settings to have games that look anywhere near remotely as good as console games. That 2006 rig that outperforms consoles will last the entire generation will providing games that look better than consoles. Theres no way around that. The only time you need to upgrade is if you're an AV nerd or a power twink. The truth is the PC has the options to be every thing the console can be. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts. And befoer you edited the quote chain my original statement towards this subject always reads, "You can conceivablly spend less on a gaming PC over the span of a generation than a console." As I have shown, its totally conceivable to do so.
[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.VandalvideoSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. Again, Cost and Value are two totally different things. What you and I are not seeing eye to eye on is what we mean by Cost. When I think cost, I think how much it costs someone from not having any hardware to having all the hardware required to play a game on either platform. What I suspect you think of as cost is the ongoing average cost to continually be a PC gamer vs. the average ongoing cost to be a console gamer. Whether you are thinking monthly costs, yearly costs or whatever. Since you are looking at it from this angle, yes being a PC gamer can be cheaper to you since you buy fewer PC games and hardly ever upgrade your hardware. Getting started at being a PC gamer is more expensive then getting started at console gaming. Ongoing PC costs are going to be much higher if you want to play games at what could be called a satisfactory level of performance (read: at least on average). But then there are the people that only buy consoles when they are at the $150 price point. PC gaming will never be cheaper then how much these people end up spending. All costs are individual depending on who the person is. I've spent, and will spend, way more money being a PC gamer then I do being a 360 gamer or a PS3 gamer. From here on out for those two console platforms I only really need to spend money on games until the next-generation comes out in 5 years or so. My PC however will get upgraded every year or so. And that is why I through in one very important word that you have totally overlooked. "Conceivable". If you want an experience similar to consoles, you can purchase some hardware in 2006 that outperforms it, and by 2011 it will STILL be outperforming it. Its not ilke you HAVE TO UPGRADE over the span of a generation. And yes, I'm speaking about the overal costs over a longer period of time, because face value arguements are extremely shallow. Saying "PC gaming is more expensive up front" is totally right, but totally shallow. If you're spending more on consoles over tiem it kind of defeats the purpose to begin with. I don't see where you used "Conceivable" in your post anywhere. And I don't see what context you tried to use it in either. Would I want to buy new hardware for my PC in 2006 and keep using it all the way until 2011? Absolutely not. Yes that is a possible decision, but not a viable one for myself or most PC gamers. Anything is possible with PC gaming really, but that doesn't make options realistic, or used often. Even so, that would never be cheaper then buying a PSone for $150 in 2000 and then having picked up a PS2 in 2004 for $150 and playing it until 2008. Console gaming can also be done on the cheap using your exact same logic. This is not using the "face value" logic, but it is still cheaper. No one is forcing console gamers to buy systems at launch. Both options have similar drawbacks. PC gaming in 2011 on a 2007 rig would mean much lower settings, and waiting for price drops means you can't play the games that came out for that format until you buy it. Both are basically the same. You don't get to play the game at the level you want to. In my personal opinion none of those is acceptable for the type of gaming I want to do. Do I have to have the fastest video card? No, but I have to have one that can at least run at a speed I find acceptable. There is no chance in hell that I will be using th same hardware my current PC has in 2011. So for many many people, even though they can do it cheaply, the ongoing cost of being a PC gamer is more expensive then being a console gamer. Not viable because yuo people are stuck on a "highest settings omg" binge. You do not have to have highest settings to have games that look anywhere near remotely as good as console games. That 2006 rig that outperforms consoles will last the entire generation will providing games that look better than consoles. Theres no way around that. The only time you need to upgrade is if you're an AV nerd or a power twink. The truth is the PC has the options to be every thing the console can be. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts. And befoer you edited the quote chain my original statement towards this subject always reads, "You can conceivablly spend less on a gaming PC over the span of a generation than a console." As I have shown, its totally conceivable to do so. You can't be wrong, can you? His arguement isn't wrong. Neither is yours, but the point is a person can do things the way you're saying they can, just as easily as they can do things the way he suggested. Stop arguing. Stop using the same words over, and over again.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment